|
Stephen G. Brush
Distinguished University Professor (Emeritus) of the History of Science
Last modified: |
Publications of Stephen G. Brush Abbreviations: EBSCOHost, Elsevier ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, JSTOR, Kluwer, Project MUSE, ProQuest, SpringerLink, and Wiley Online Library are collections of online journals available by subscription HMPP = revised version is included in item #265 KMWCH = revised version is included in item #114 KTG = reprinted in item #300 SPATM = revised version is included in item 181 (Sub) = online journal available only by subscription; clicking link will usually lead to article purchase options and often first page of article. (XT) = title was not chosen by SGB ______________________________________
For articles and notes published in the University of Maryland Faculty Voice (quarterly newspaper) go to the following page on the Internet Archive, which retains the PDFS of the back issues Faculty Voice Archives
Where possible, links to articles have been given using their Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) to ensure link permanence.
For summary of Nachlass go to University of Maryland Archives-Stephen G. Brush Papers ____________________________________________________________________________________
1. Water Contamination. (XT) Maine Teachers Digest, 2, no. 9: 21 (May 1951). Effects of human and industrial pollution on chemical composition of the Penobscot River were determined at 18 places along the river. Lincoln and Old Town appear to contaminate the river more, though the Bangor-Brewer area has a larger population. Ammonia, bacteria and sulfites increase sharply after major sources of pollution and then gradually decrease; other components increase steadily. (Summary of project for Westinghouse Science Talent Search; SGB was a finalist).
2. Dipole Moments and Dielectric Polarization in Solutions. (By F. E. Harris & SGB). Journal of the American Chemical Society, 78: 1280-7 (1956). https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja01588a004 (Sub) The statistical-mechanical theory of dielectric polarization is extended to mixtures and applied to dilute solutions of polar molecules in non-polar solvents. The resulting equation, which differs significantly from that of Debye, permits unambiguous experimental determination of a precisely defined effective dipole moment in solution. The relation between the solution moment and vacuum moment is discussed in terms of an ellipsoidal molecule-continuous solvent model, and it is shown that it is necessary to consider the induced polarization of both the polar molecule and surrounding solvent. The solvent effects calculated on the basis of this model differ from earlier results of others based on the same model, and are in qualitative agreement with experiment. Alternative ways of calculating the distortion polarization are discussed and it is concluded that the Clausius-Mossotti expression is, though not ideal, adequate for this purpose. 3. A Simplified Method for Integrating over Feynman Histories. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 53: 651-3 (1957). https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305004100032710 (Sub) In Feynman’s “space-time” formulation of quantum mechanics, the Green’s function for the Schrödinger equation is defined by an integral over all histories of the system. By integrating over one-parameter sets of functions, one gets the same Green’s function as by integrating over a Fourier series, in simple cases. The method may be used for estimating the result in cases where the integration over all histories cannot be performed exactly.
4. The Transition Temperature in Liquid Helium. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 242: 544-57 (1957). https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1957.0194 (Sub) The partition function for an imperfect Bose-Einstein assembly of atoms is evaluated following Feynman’s path-integral method (1948) as modified by R. Kikuchi for a lattice model. The “effective mass” approximation is avoided, and instead a factor depending explicitly on interatomic forces is introduced. This factor is evaluated approximately for pairs of atoms interacting with a Lenard-Jones potential. The calculation involves only the properties of the individual helium atoms and disregards collective excitations. No adjustable parameters are used. A peak in the specific heat at 2.0°K is found (experimental value, 2.2°K), and this transition temperature decreases with density. There is another transition at about 3.0°K which is probably a liquid-gas transition. If the interatomic forces are very weak one would get only this second transition; the 8 transition does not occur at all unless the forces are of the order of magnitude of those actually found in helium.
The Transition Temperature in Liquid Helium, II. ibid. 247: 225-36 (1958). https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1958.0180 (Sub) The Feynman-Kikuchi theory of the 8-transition is improved in various respects. A more general formulation of the approximate path integral for two-atom permutations gives the result that these permutations should be unimportant except below about 1°K, where they may become more important than the other kinds of permutations. The lattice model is generalized by allowing vacant lattice sites (holes) so that there is a gas-liquid transition as well as a 8-transition. If one assumes that the lattice spacing is fixed and the only effect of pressure is to change the number of holes, then one finds that the transition temperature decreases with pressure if the “effective mass” for many-sided polygons is taken to be more than twice the real mass. On the other hand, with such a large effective mass the transition temperature itself comes out too low. If one allowed the lattice spacing and effective mass to vary with pressure, one could obtain better numerical agreement with experiment, but with so many adjustable parameters such agreement would not be significant. The effective of lattice structure on the transition is also discussed, and it is found that the product of effective mass, square of lattice spacing, and transition temperature should increase with the coordination number of the lattice. The treatment can also be extended to mixtures of helium isotopes; the effect of small amounts of 3He or 6He is similar to that predicted by other theories.
Theory of the Lambda Transition. Proceedings of the Kamerlingh Onnes Conference on Low Temperature Physics at Leiden on 23-28 June 1958 [supplement to Physica 24: S 137 (September 1958)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0031-8914(58)80530-3 (Sub)
5. The Development of the Kinetic Theory of Gases, I. Herapath.
Annals
of Science, 13: 188-98 (1957).
KMWCH https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033790.1957.9728319
(Sub) The
British scientist (later a railway journalist) John Herapath (1790-1868) was
the first important kinetic theorist in the 19th century. He postulated that
the heat of a fluid composed of particles is proportional to the momentum of
its particles, and defined the absolute temperature as the total momentum
divided by the number of particles. Thus the pressure is proportional to the
square of the absolute temperature. He argued that this conclusion was con
firmed by experiments of de Luc on the mixing of equal portions of water at
32°F and 212°F, although experiments by Crawford seemed to contradict de Luc’s
result. He also calculated from his theory the rate of diffusion and the
velocity of sound in gases. 6. The Development of the Kinetic Theory of
Gases, II. Waterston. Annals
of Science, 13: 273-82 (1957). KMWCH https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033795700200151
(Sub) John
James Waterston (1811-1883) submitted a paper to the Royal Society in 1845,
presenting a theory similar to that of Clausius, but it was refused publication
and remained unknown until after his death. The published abstract contains
the first statement of the equipartition theorem. Because
of a computational error he obtained the wrong theoretical value (4/3) for the
ratio of specific heats of a gas, which happened to agree with experimental
values available at the time, so he missed the “paradox of specific heats.” In
1893 Rayleigh found the paper in the Society’s archives and had it published. 7. Statistical Thermodynamics of Mixtures. Transactions
of the Faraday Society, 54: 1781-5
(1958).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/TF9585401781
(Sub) Guggenheim’s
“quasi-chemical approximation” for the Ising problem is formulated. The
implicit equation determining the critical solution temperature is given
(confirming a result of Barker) and it is shown how the energy and entropy of
mixing may be calculated. Two new results are given for the square lattice. 8. The Development of the Kinetic Theory of
Gases, III. Clausius. Annals
of Science, 14: 185-96 (1958). KMWCH
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033795800200107
(Sub) Having
established by his experiments in the preceding five years the equivalence of
heat and mechanical work, J. P. Joule proposed in 1848 to revive Herapath’s
kinetic theory. He used it to calculate the velocity of a hydrogen molecule.
August Karl Krönig is usually credited with reviving the kinetic theory after
1859 (although he did not advance beyond the work of Herapth and Joule). The
1857 paper of Rudolf Clausius (1822-1888) initiated the modern development of
the kinetic theory. In 1858, in response to an objection by the meteorologist
C. H. D. Buys-Ballot, he introduced the mean-free-path concept. 9. The Development of the Kinetic Theory of
Gases, IV. Maxwell. Annals
of Science, 14: 243-55 (1958). KMWCH
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033795800200147
(Sub) Russian
translation in Dshems Klerk Maksvell, Stati I Rechi (Moscow, 1968), pp.
288-304. James
Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) proposed his velocity distribution function in 1860
along with a mean-free-path theory of transport processes based on the
elastic-sphere model. The reception of the kinetic theory in the 1860s is
surveyed. Viscosity
of a Hard-sphere Fluid (by SGB, T. E. Wainwright & B. J. Alder). Presented
at the Montreal meeting of the American Physical Society, June 1960. 10. (Letter to the editor on Davy and
Herapath). Scientific American
, 203, no. 3: 16 (Sept.
1960).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/letters-1960-09/
(Sub) In
a comment on L. Pearce Williams’ article on Humphry Davy, it is noted that Davy
was partly responsible for the Royal Society’s rejection of Herapath’s kinetic
theory, even though it was based on the view, accepted by Davy, that heat is
molecular motion. 11. Functional Integrals and Statistical
Physics. Reviews
of Modern Physics, 33: 79-92 (1961). https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.33.79
(Sub) Review
of Feynman’s path-integral theory applied to statistical mechanics, including
its relation to Norbert Wiener’s theory of Brownian movement and the
mathematical theory of Gel’fand and Yaglom. The quantum-mechanical partition
function can be written as a series in powers of Planck’s constant, thus
showing how it reduces to classical statistical mechanics when that constant
goes to zero. The application to superfluid helium by Feynman and Kikuchi is
summarized. The most extensive application of the path-integral concept is R. Abé’s
theory of the electron-phonon system (1954). Feynman’s theory restores to the
physicist some of the conceptual advantages of classical mechanics, in which
one could imagine atoms following definite trajectories even if one could not
actually see them. Feynman’s path integral does not imply that the particle
“really” executes the motions over which one integrates; it simply means that
the particle behaves as if it did, and therefore it is legitimate to use
physical intuition in looking for valid approximation methods. 12. Development of the kinetic theory of gases,
V. The Equation of State.
American Journal of Physics, 29: 593-605
(1961). KMWCH https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1937858
(Sub) Some
early attempts to explain deviations from the ideal gas law are discussed.
After a general survey of 19th-century work, the works of E. Ritter
(1846), R. Clausius (1870), and J. D. Van der Waals (1873) are discussed in
detail. Ritter used Poisson’s formula to include the virial of interatomic
forces in the caloric theory of gaseous pressure; Clausius introduced similar
methods in the kinetic theory. Combined with the Maxwell-Boltzmann
distribution law, the virial theorem provided a systematic procedure for
calculating the pressure from any assumed force law. Van der Waals used more
intuitive methods for taking account of the effect of finite molecular size and
attractive forces. The success of his equation of state led to a large amount
of work on the equation of state, but rigorous deductions from definite
molecular models did not begin until around 1900 13. John James Waterston and the kinetic theory
of gases.
American Scientist, 49: 202-14 (1961). This
paper falls into two sections: the first is an outline of the major
developments in the kinetic theory from about 1820 to 1920; the second is a more
detailed discussion of the work of Waterston (based on item 6). 14. Origin of the word “neutron.” Nature. 190: 251 (1961).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/190251b0 (Sub) William
Sutherland used it in 1902. 15. Correction to the Debye-Huckel theory. (By
J. G. Trulio and SGB). Physical
Review, 121: 940 (1961). https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.121.940
(Sub) The
correlation energy of a classical one-component electron gas is estimated by
the method of Abé. The results are compared with those recently obtained by a
different method by D. L. Bowers and E. E. Salpeter. 16. On the Optimum Distribution of Income. Trabajos
de Estadistica, 12: 155-70 (1961). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03005825
(Sub) The
central problem of welfare economics is to find the best way to distribute the goods
produced by a society among its members. Yet there seems to be no quantitative
solution accepted by the majority of economists, probably because of the lack
of agreement on the meaning of “best.” I develop a method whereby the
consequences of various definitions of “best” may be deduced, provided one is
willing to accept certain additional assumptions. Maximum-welfare
solutions are found for 3 kinds of distribution functions: “Pearson type III”
functions; a function suggested by Champernowne (1952); and the lognormal
distribution. It is assumed that there may be some “incentive effect” that
affects the total income: equalization of incomes may reduce incentives to
produce and invest. It appears that the solution to the classical
maximum-welfare problem does not lie in a moderate amount of redistribution so
as to achieve some “compromise” between present inequality and ideal equality.
Instead, one needs to decide on the magnitude of the incentive effect; if it is
less than a certain critical value, the best distribution is an equal one. If
it is larger than the critical value, then any redistribution of income will
decrease total welfare. 17. Statistical Thermodynamics of Mixtures,
II. Convergence of the quasi-chemical method for the Ising square lattice. Journal
of Chemical Physics, 34: 1852-3
(1961). https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1701101
(Sub) For
the purpose of calculating the critical solution temperature, the convergence
of Guggenheim’s method (Mixtures, 1952) is very slow. 18. Development of the Kinetic Theory of Gases,
VI. Viscosity.
American Journal of Physics, 30: 269-81
(1962). KMWCH https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.19419881
(Sub) This
article reviews the development of theories of transport phenomena proposed by
Maxwell (1866), Boltzmann (1872), Chapman (1916) and Enskog (1917) and their
application to the calculation of the viscosity coefficient. Maxwell’s
original mean-free-path method for hard spheres (1860) was refined by Tait,
Sutherland, Rayleigh, and Jeans, but suffered from inherent limitations because
the velocity-distribution function in a non-uniform gas was unknown. Maxwell
(1866) and Boltzmann (1872) proposed more general methods for dealing with
transport processes in low-density gases; these methods form the basis of the
modern theory. However, they did not manage to solve their equations except in
a few special cases. It was not until half a century later that Chapman (1916)
and Enskog (1917) succeeded in determining the velocity-distribution function
to an accuracy sufficient for the calculation of transport coefficients for any
assumed force law. The extension of the theory to dense gases was accomplished
by Enskog (1922), who obtained an expression for the viscosity coefficient
similar to one proposed by Jäger (1900). 19. Theories of Liquid Viscosity. Chemical
Reviews, 62: 513-48 (1962). https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cr60220a002
(Sub) Comparison
of liquid with gas viscosity. Macroscopic theories (viscous flow, non-linear
theory, bulk viscosity, rheology, turbulence). Microscopic theories (dense gas
of hard spheres, monatomic liquid with gas-like or solid-like structure, semi-empirical
relations with other properties, corresponding states). Fluctuation-dissipation
theory. Quantum-mechanical generalization. Quantum hydrodynamics
(Landau-Khalatnikov theory). 20. The Effect of the Interaction of Ions on
their Equilibrium Concentration. Journal
of Nuclear Energy (Part C), 4: 287-9
(1962). https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0368-3281/4/4/307
(Sub) According
to B. L. Timan (1954), the electrostatic interaction of ions in an ionized gas
tends to favor ionization and at sufficiently high pressures the degree of
ionization will start to increase with pressure. By using some
recently-developed improvements of the Debye-Hückel theory, it is shown that,
while in the case considered by Timon this effect does not occur at any
pressure for which the theory is valid, it does occur at somewhat lower
temperatures. One thus obtains a type of “pressure ionization” from a
classical model without invoking volume-dependence of energy levels or similar
effects. 21. Equation of State of Classical Systems of
Charged Particles. (By SGB, H. E. DeWitt & J. Trulio). Nuclear
Fusion, 3: 5-22 (1963). https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/3/1/003
(Sub) Recent
developments in the classical theory of fully ionized gases and strong
electrolyte solutions are reviewed and used to discuss the equation of state at
high temperatures and low densities. The pressure is calculated with the
“ring-integral” approximation, and quantitative estimates of higher correction
terms are given. The effect of short-range repulsive forces is shown by
comparing the results with two kinds of potential functions: hard spheres of
diameter a and “soft” spheres for which the short-range potential
cancels the Coulomb potential at the origin and decreases exponentially with
distance. It is found that the use of either type of potential extends the
range of validity of the ring-integral approximation to considerably greater
densities and lower temperatures. Since there is little difference in the
results for the hard spheres and the soft spheres in this range, and since the
soft-sphere system is more easily handled by analytical methods, it is
investigated more extensively. The expression derived for the free energy of a
system of charged particles can also be used in ionization equilibrium
calculations, and the effect of electrostatic interactions on the equilibrium
concentrations of various kinds of ions is indicated. 22. Distribution of the Number of Joins between
colored Points on a Lattice. (By SGB & Garret L. Boer). Trabajos de
Estadistica, 14: 191-195 (1963). Trabajos
de Estadistica, 12: 155-70 (1961). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03013703
(Sub) Tables
are presented showing the number of configurations mij of
arrays of points (l x m x n) on a regular lattice, such that I
points are black and (lmn - I) are white, and such that there are j
pairs (joins) of neighboring points of different colors, for the arrays
(4x4x1), (5x5x1), (6x6x1), and (3x3x3). These data are used in approximate
solutions of the Ising problem in statistical mechanics. 23. The Royal Society’s first Rejection of the
Kinetic Theory of Gases (1821), John Herapath versus Humphry Davy. Notes
and Records of the Royal Society of London. 18: 161-80 (1963).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.1963.0019
(Sub) The
account in item 5 is supplemented by quoting the correspondence between
Herapath, Davy and Davies Gilbert about Herapath’s paper submitted to the Royal
Society, and letters from Herapath published in The Times. 24. Pair Distribution Function of a Classical
Electron Gas. (By SGB, H. L. Sahlin & E. Teller). Proceedings
of the 3rd Eastern United States Theoretical Physics Conference (1964) p. 5-1. Preliminary
results of the research reported in item 32. 25. Lectures on Gas Theory by Ludwig
Boltzmann (English translation, with introduction and notes). University of California Press , Berkeley, 1964, ix + 490 pp. Reprinted by Dover Publication., New York, 1995. See
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/Lectures_on_Gas_Theory.html The
Translator's Introduction, Notes and Bibliography were translated into German
(“Einleitung, Anmerkungen und Bibliographie,” 71 pp.) and published with the
reprint of the original work in Ludwig Boltzmann Gesamtausgabe, Band 1,
edited by R. U. Sexl, Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz/Friedr. Vieweg
& Sohn, Braunschweig, Wiesbaden, 1981. 26. Transport Coefficients for the Square-Well
Potential Model. Journal
of Chemical Physics, 42: 792 (1965).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1696011
(Sub) The
collision cross-section integrals for hard spheres with square-well attractive
forces have been recalculated in order to provide the exact low-density limit
for calculations of the viscosity and other transport properties of the system. 27. Kinetic Theory. Encyclopedia of Physics, Reinhold Publishing
Company (1966), pp. 361-64. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page
To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
28. Kinetic Theory, Volume 1. The
Nature of Gases and of Heat. Pergamon
Press, Oxford, 1965, xi + 181 pp. KTG Available through
Elsevier ScienceDirect; Introduction can be viewed for free See also
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/The_Kinetic_Theory_of_Gases.html Introduction.
Extracts from works by Robert Boyle (1660), Isaac Newton (1687), Daniel
Bernoulli (1738), George Gregory (1798), Robert Mayer (1842), James Prescott
Joule (1847), Hermann von Helmholtz (1847), Rudolf Clausius (1857, 1858, 1870),
and James Clerk Maxwell (1858), including reprints of previously-published
translations from Latin and German. 29. Liquid and Gas Physics. Science
Year, the World Book Science Annual,
Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, Chicago, 1965, p. 326. 30. Review of The Use of Citation Data in
Writing the History of Science by E. Garfield et al. Isis, 56: 487 (1965). 31. Kinetic Theory, Volume 2.
Irreversible Processes. Pergamon
Press, Oxford, 1966, xii + 249 pp. KTG Available through
Elsevier ScienceDirect; Introduction can be viewed for free See
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/The_Kinetic_Theory_of_Gases.html Introduction.
Reprints of papers by James Clerk Maxwell (1866), William Thomson [Lord
Kelvin] (1874); new translations from German of papers by Ludwig Boltzmann
(1872, 1877, 1896, 1897), and Ernst Zermelo (1896), and from French of a paper
by Henri Poincaré (1893). 32. A Monte Carlo Study of a One-Component
Plasma, I. (By SGB, H. L. Sahlin & E. Teller). Journal
of Chemical Physics, 45: 2102-18 (1966).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1727895
(Sub) A Monte Carlo study has been made of a classical plasma of heavy ions immersed in a uniform
neutralizing background. Systems containing from 32 to 500 particles, with
periodic boundary conditions, were used. The results of the study are
presented in terms of a dimensionless parameter '
= (4Bn/3)½[Ze)2/kT],
where n is the ion density (particles per cc), T is the
temperature (°K), k is the Boltzmann constant, e is the
electronic charge, and Z is the atomic number. Thermodynamic properties
and pair distribution functions were obtained for values of ' ranging from 0.05 to 100.0 from the canonical
ensemble by the Monte Carlo (MC) method. Two
different methods were used to determine the potential energy of a
configuration. The first is the “minimum-image convention” employed in many
previous MC calculations. Each point is allowed to interact only with each
other particle in the basic cell, or with the nearest periodic image of each
other particle if the image is closer. In the second method, the interaction
of a particle with all the images of the other particles, and with the uniform
background, is taken into account by a technique similar to the Ewald procedure
used to calculate lattice sums. It is found that both methods yield
essentially the same results for the pair distribution function g for ' values of 10 or less. For larger values of ' the results given by the two methods differ
significantly, indicating that the minimum image convention is inadequate for
plasma systems at high densities and low temperatures. Energies
and values of the pair distribution function are compared with predictions of
various approximate theories for small '
values. It is found that the nonlinear Debye-Hückel (DH) theory is in
agreement with the MC results for values of ' up to
0.1. At ' = 1.0, significant deviations from the DH theory are
observed. For ' = 1.0, g is found to be in close agreement
with Carley’s calculations based on the Percus-Yevick equation. For values of ' above 2, g is no longer a monotonic function
of the interparticle distance r, but begins to show oscillations
characteristic of latticelike structure. For large values of ' these oscillations are quite pronounced. The system
is observed to undergo a fluid-solid phase transition (to a crystal with
symmetry fcc or bcc depending on number of particles) in the vicinity of ' = 125. 33. Thermodynamics and History: Science and
Culture in the 19th century. The
Graduate Journal, 7: 477-565 (1967). To see a preview of the journal issue, go to Google Books
Romanticism
and Realism as correlated movements in science and culture. Dissipation of
Energy. Uniformitarian Geology and the Age of the Earth Controversy.
Implications for Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Degeneration. Herbert
Spencer. Attempts to Escape the Heat Death. The Eternal Return. Neo-Romanticism:
The Reaction against Materialism. Positivism, Empiriocriticism, Energetics.
Criticisms of the Kinetic Theory. Henry Adams and the Thermodynamics of
History 34. Theories of the Equation of State of Matter
at high Pressures and Temperatures. Progress
in High Temperature Physics and Chemistry, 1: 1-137 (1967). To order used through Amazon.com and see a preview of the book, go to
Amazon Page for Journal and Preview
To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
Survey
of theories of EoS, and temperature-density regions where they are relevant.
Sources of information. Theoretical calculations for high-T, low-d region:
ionization equilibrium, Debye-Hückel theory, statistical mechanics of classical
plasma, radiation pressure, pair production. Theoretical calculations for the
high-d, low-T region: Murnaghan-Birch theory, Fermi-Dirac gas, Thomas-Fermi
theory, etc. Thermodynamic description of high-pressure states: Hugoniot EoS,
Mie-Grüneisen EoS, semi-empirical theory of Grüneisen’s ratio. 35. Bibliography of Research on Lowering of
Ionization Potentials in Plasmas. (Appendix to “Opacity of High-Temperature
Air” by B. H. Armstrong, R. R. Johnson, P. S. Kelly, H. E. DeWitt & SGB). Progress
in High Temperature Physics and Chemistry, 1: 231-42 (1967). To order used through Amazon.com and see a preview of the book, go to
Amazon Page for Journal and Preview
To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
36. Improvement of the Cluster Variation
Method. (By R. Kikuchi & SGB). Journal
of Chemical Physics, 47: 195-203
(1967). https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1711845
(Sub) It
is shown that efficient convergence of the Cluster Variation Method for
cooperative phenomena in statistical mechanics) CVM for the Ising model of
cooperative phenomena) for two dimensions can be achieved by increasing the
size of the basic cluster one-dimensionally rather than two-dimensionally, and
by formulating the degeneracy factor anisotropically. The method is
illustrated with the Ising model in a square lattice, and the following are
presented: (a) an angle-shaped (or a V-shaped) basic cluster of 3 points can
give the same result as a square basic cluster; (b) a general case is
formulated in which a zigzag shape of n V’s is used as the basic
cluster; and ( c) the case of the W cluster (two V’s) is calculated using the
general formulation mentioned above. It is shown that, when they are plotted
against the reciprocal of the number of points in a cluster, the Curie points
calculated by different methods lie very close to a straight line. 37. Foundations of Statistical Mechanics
1845-1915. Archive
for History of Exact Sciences, 4:
145-83 (1967). Topics
include: Waterston’s equipartition theorem. Clausius’s postulate about
internal motions. Maxwell’s velocity distribution. Equalization of kinetic
energy by collisions. The effect of forces on the distribution law: the
“Boltzmann factor.” Equilibrium of a column of gas under gravitational
forces. Approach to equilibrium and the problem of irreversibility. The
paradox of specific heats. Validity of the equipartition theorem. The ergodic
hypothesis of Boltzmann and Maxwell. Digression on the history of
mathematics. Proof of the impossibility of ergodic systems. 38. History of the Lenz-Ising Model. Reviews
of Modern Physics, 39: 883-93 (1967).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.39.883
(Sub) Many
physico-chemical systems can be represented by a lattice of molecules with
nearest-neighbor interactions. The simplest and most popular version of this
theory is the so-called “Ising model,” discussed by Ernst Ising in 1925 but
suggested earlier (1920) by Wilhem Lenz. Subsequent major events were the
development of approximate method of solution, Lars Onsager’s exact result for
the two-dimensional model, the use of the mathematically-equivalent “lattice
gas” model to study gas-liquid and liquid-solid phase transitions, and recent
progress in determining the singularities of thermodynamic/magnetic properties
at the critical point. Not only is there a wide range of possible physical
applications of the model, there is also an urgent need for the application of
advanced mathematical techniques in order to establish exact properties,
especially in the neighborhood of phase transitions where approximate methods
are unreliable. 39. Boltzmann’s “Eta Theorem”: Where’s the
evidence?
American Journal of Physics, 35: 892 (1967). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1974281
(Sub) Does
the H in Boltzmann’s H theorem stand for capital Greek eta? 40. Note on the History of the
FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction. Isis, 58: 230-2 (1967). Correspondence
between G. F. FitzGerald and H. A. Lorentz. FitzGerald’s publication of the
contraction hypothesis was unknown to him and to others who wrote about it. 41. Review of The Wellesley Index to
Victorian Periodicals by W. E. Houghton et al. Isis, 58: 251-3 (1967). 42. Mach and Atomism. Synthese, 18:
192-215 (1968). After
first accepting the “atmospheric atom” model of G. Fechner and his teacher A.
R. von Ettinshausen, Ernst Mach rejected it. He became skeptical about the
validity of other versions of atomism, granting them only heuristic value. His
refusal to accept atomism, even after the work of Einstein, Smoluchowski and
Perrin on Brownian movement had provided evidence that convinced other skeptics
like Ostwald, undermines the credibility of his methodology as a guide for research. 43. A History of Random Processes, I. Brownian Movement from Brown to Perrin. Archive
for History of Exact Sciences, 5:
1-36 (1968). Reprinted in Studies in the History of Statistics and
Probability, II, edited by M. Kendall & R. L. Plackett. New York: Macmillan, 1977, 347-82. Topics
include Robert Brown’s observations and interpretations thereof; observations
and qualitative experiments, 1840-1878.; criticisms of the molecular-impact
theory; Einstein’s theory; Perrin’s experiments and the reality of atoms. 44. A View of Normal Science (Review of The
Nature of Physics by R. B. Lindsay) The
Physics Teacher, 6: 375-6 (1968). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2351311
(Sub) 45. Harvard Project Physics: An old Solution to
a new Problem? Proceedings
of the Seventh Annual Conference on Recent Advances in Physics, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, December 27-28, 1968,
pp. 33-42. Physicists
now recognize the need for introductory courses designed for students who will
not become scientists and engineers. The new “Project Physics Course” meets
this need by reviving the historical approach. Making the history more
accurate than in current textbooks can have pedagogical value, for example in
showing why the commonly-found statement that “Romer first determined the speed
of light in 1676" is physically incorrect. 46. Romance in six Figures. Physics
Today, 22, no. 1: 9 (January 1969). https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3035381
(Sub) A.
A. Michelson popularized the idea that physicists have nothing left to do but
determine the physical constants to another decimal place, but attributed this
idea to a mysterious “eminent physicist.” Who was that person, and is the idea
itself an accurate view of physics in the 1890s? 47. From Dalton to Chadwick (Review of The
Atomists (1805-1933) by B. Schonland). The
Physics Teacher, 7: 171-3 (1969). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2352537
(Sub) 48. The Role of History in the Teaching of
Physics. The
Physics Teacher, 7: 271-80 (1969). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2351365
(Sub) The
favorable reception of the Project Physics Course indicates an interest in
teaching physics from a more humanistic viewpoint. But its success will
require teachers to learn more about the history of science, to avoid the myths
and fallacies now found in textbooks (e.g. about the discovery of the speed of
light, the dissipation of energy, and the origin of quantum theory). 49. Geography, experimental History. (XT) Physics
Today, 22, no. 7: 9, 11 (July 1969). https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3035719
(Sub) Comment
on an article by Arnold Strassenburg and Margaret T. Llano, “What does He
Study?” Some editorial slips are noted, including the assertion that all 10
physics departments that cover history and philosophy of physics do only
“experimental” work in this area, none are “theoretical”; the new program at
the University of Maryland should fill this gap. 50. Maxwell, Osborne Reynolds, and the
Radiometer. (By SGB & C. W. F. Everitt). Historical
Studies in the Physical Sciences, 1:
105-25 (1969). KMWCH In
1873 William Crookes popularized the “radiometer,” which was initially thought
to show the pressure of light. Maxwell and Reynolds developed theories showing
how the rotation of the vanes can be explained by gas-surface interactions at
low pressure. The most interesting part of the story is found in unpublished
referee reports held at the Royal Society of London. 51. Boltzmann, Ludwig (b. Vienna, Austria, 20 February 1844; d. Duino, near Trieste, 5 September 1906, physics.
Dictionary
of Scientific Biography, 2: 260-8
(1970). KMWCH See https://shar.es/1vpDaa for ebook purchase options for the DSB 52. Taming the Bomb. (Review of: A Peril
and a Hope, by A. K. Smith, and Scientists in Politics, by D. A.
Strickland). The
Physics Teacher, 8: 213-16 (1970). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2351466
(Sub) 53. The Origins of Atomic Theory. (Review of John
Dalton and the Progress of Science, edited by D. S. L. Cardwell). The
Physics Teacher, 8: 275-6 (1970). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2351495
(Sub) 54. History for Scientists. (Review of Essays
in the History of Mechanics, by C. Truesdell). Isis, 61: 115-18 (1970). 55. Review of Immanuel Kant’s Universal
Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, reprint of translation. https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3021795
(Sub) 56. Francis Bitter and “Landau Diamagnetism.” Journal
of Statistical Physics, 2: 195-97
(1970). A
forgotten paper by Bitter (1930) on the diamagnetism of a quantum electron gas
presented an approximate result similar to the formula established by L. D.
Landau in the same year. 57. Report of the International Working Seminar
on the Role of the History of Physics in Physics Education. The Physics
Teacher, 8: 508-10 (1970). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2352682
(Sub) Recommendations
include: a book on the history of physics; encouragement and assistance to
teachers; preservation of archival materials; translations of historical
works. See also the summary by Brian Gee in Physics Education, 7, no.
1, 50-52 (January 1972) 58. Interatomic Forces and Gas Theory from Newton to Lennard-Jones. Archive
for Rational Mechanics and Analysis,
39: 1-29 (1970). SPATM; KTG A
recurrent theme in the physical science of the past 3 centuries has been
provided by the program attributed to Isaac Newton: from the phenomena of
nature to find the forces between particles of matter, and from these forces to
explain and predict other phenomena. The success or failure of this program as
a guide to research can be assessed by considering some of the cases in which
it has been applied: Newton’s own theory of gas pressure; the Boscovich theory
of point centers of force; Laplace’s model of short-range attractive and
long-range repulsive forces; the billiard-ball model used in the elementary
kinetic theory of gases; Maxwell’s inverse 5th power repulsive force used to
simplify calculations in his transport theory; and forces assumed in deriving
the equation of state of J. D. Van der Waals. A more detailed examination is
presented of the rise and fall of the “Lennard-Jones potential” in relation to
calculations and experimental data on virial coefficients and transport
properties of gases, solid state properties, and the quantum theory of
interatomic forces. The
history of the subject suggests that the hypothetico-deductive model of
scientific method has not often been followed in practice, since the reasons
for adopting or rejecting new interatomic force laws are often no simply related
to the success or failure of the force law in calculations of gas properties. At
present there is serious doubt about whether it is worthwhile to determine a
single “realistic” force law for the interaction between two atoms or
molecules. It may be more fruitful to abandon this program and (following
Maxwell’s example) to choose force laws instead on the basis of their
convenience in a particular mathematical theory of the properties of matter. 59. The Wave Theory of Heat: A Forgotten Stage
in the Transition from the Caloric Theory to Thermodynamics. The
British Journal for the History of Science, 5: 145-67 (1970). KMWCH https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400010906
(Sub) At
the start of the 19th century both heat and light were thought to be
particles. Radiant heat was found to have most of the properties of light,
suggesting that heat and light are the same thing. Replacement of the
particle theory of light by the wave theory (Young, Fresnel) led to replacement
of the particle theory of heat by a wave theory (Ampère and others). The
“caloric” fluid was seen as a form of “ether” and heat as consisting in the vibrations
of this fluid rather than its amount. This in turn suggested that heat
is a form of mechanical energy, and allowed an easy transition to the idea that
heat is related to mechanical work (thermodynamics) and to the energy of atoms
(kinetic theory of gases). The wave theory of heat then disappeared from
physics (and from histories of physics), but the idea that ether is involved
in the transmission of energy between atoms resurfaced in debates about
blackbody radiation at the end of the 19th century. 60. Kinetische Theorie, Band I. Die Natur
der Gase und der Warme. (German translation of item 28). Akademie-Verlag,
Berlin; Pergamon Press, Oxford; Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, 1970, 257 pp. 61. Kinetische Theorie, Band II.
Irreversible Prozesse. (German translation of item 31). Akademie-Verlag, Berlin; Pergamon Press, Oxford; Vieweg & Sohn,
Braunschweig, 1970, 314 pp. To order Volume 2 used through Amazon.com go to
Amazon Page for Volume 2
To see more ordering options and a preview, go to
Google Books
62. Review of Francis Bitter, Selected
Papers and Commentaries, edited by T. Erber & C. M. Fowler). https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3022568
(Sub) 63. The Project Physics Course. Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1971; second edition 1975. Semi-anonymous
publication. The Directors of Harvard Project Physics were G. Holton, F. J.
Rutherford & F. G. Watson, and they are listed as its “authors” in some
book catalogs. SGB is listed (page A21) as one of more than 100 “staff and
consultants” who “contributed in some way to the development of the course
materials” but was in fact primarily responsible for the text of two of the
original six units: Unit 3, “The Triumph of Mechanics” (144 pp.) and Unit 4
“Light and Electromagnetism” (130 pp.). Some of this material was used in
item 89. These texts can
be found for free at the Internet Archive at the following link: 64. Review of Vorgeschichte
des Planckschen Strahlungsgesetzes by Hans Kangro. Isis 62: 555-56 (1971). 65. Review of Transport Phenomena in Fluids,
edited by H. J. M.. Hanley.
American Journal of Physics, 39: 463 (1971). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1986192
(Sub) 66. Positivism in Ancient and Modern Science
(review of translation of P. Duhem, To Save the Phenomena) The
Physics Teacher 9: 204-6 (1971). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2351665
(Sub) 67. James Clerk Maxwell and the Kinetic Theory
of Gases: A Review based on Recent Historical Studies.
American Journal of Physics, 39: 631-40
(1971). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1986248
(Sub) Maxwell’s
4 major papers and some shorter publications are discussed in the light of
subsequent research. Further information about the origin and development of
his ideas, based on study of unpublished materials and closer examination of
less well-known articles, is reviewed. 68. The Role of the History of Physics in
Physics Education.
American Journal of Physics, 39: 848 (1971). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1986306
(Sub) 69. Enskog, David (b. Västra Ämtervik,
Värmland, Sweden, 22 April 1884; d. Stockholm, Sweden, 1 June 1947), physics.
Dictionary
of Scientific Biography, 4: 375-6
(1971). See https://shar.es/1vpDaa for ebook purchase options for the DSB 70. Proof of the Impossibility of Ergodic
Systems: The 1913 Papers of Rosenthal and Plancherel. Transport
Theory and Statistical Physics, 1:
287-311 (1971). KTG https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00411457108231454
(Sub) Can
a mechanical system eventually pass through every possible combination of
positions and velocities of all its parts (compatible with a fixed total
energy)? If this “ergodic hypothesis” is correct, one could justify the use of
equilibrium statistical mechanics in calculating thermodynamic properties, as
noted by Maxwell and Boltzmann. But in 1913, M. Plancherel and Artur Rosenthal,
using recent advances in mathematics, independently proved that the answer is
no. English translations of their papers are included. 71. Review of Collected Scientific Papers of
Meghnad Saha , edited by S. Chatterjee. Physics
Today, 25, no. 2: 55-6 (Feb. 1972). https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3070728
(Sub) 72. Simultaneous Discovery (30 minute audio
tape). Canadian
Broadcasting Corp. Learning Systems, Toronto, Cat. #201. (Published 1972) Discussion
of the discovery of energy conservation in the 19th century. Broadcast January
17, 1969. Text of this an an earlier (Jan. 10) broadcast, “Disappearing
Boundaries,” issued as Technical Note BN-597 by Institute for Fluid Dynamics
& Applied Mathematics, University of Maryland. 73. Atoms and Models (30 minute audio tape,
with E. Vogt and R. Kreps). Canadian
Broadcasting Corp. Learning Systems, Toronto, Cat. #283. (Published 1972) 74. Matter and Force (30 minute audio tape). Canadian
Broadcasting Corp. Learning Systems, Toronto, Cat. #200. (Published 1972) 75. Resources for the History of Physics
(editor). University
Press of New England, Hanover, NH, 1972, 90 + 86 pp. I. Guide to Books and Audiovisual Materials. II.
Guide to Original Works of Historical Importance and their Translations into
other Languages. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page
To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
76. A Fascinating Reference (review of Dictionary
of Scientific Biography, edited by C. C. Gillispie, vols. I-IV). The
Physics Teacher, 10: 158 (1972). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2352143
(Sub) 77. Kinetic Theory , Volume 3. The
Chapman-Enskog Solution of the Transport Equation for Moderately Dense Gases.
Pergamon Press, Oxford & New York, 1972, x + 283 pp. Available through
Elsevier ScienceDirect; Preface can be viewed for free Part
1: The work of Hilbert, Chapman, and Enskog; Comparison of the Chapman-Enskog
Results with those of earlier Theories; Application of Kinetic Theory to Determination
of Intermolecular Forces; Propagation of Sound in Monatomic Gases;
Alternatives to the Chapman-Enskog Method, and Mathematical Problems;
Generalizations of the Kinetic Theory to Higher Densities. Part 2: Reprint of
papers by Sydney Chapman (1916-17, 1966) and by Chapman & F. W. Dootson
(1917); translation of papers by David Hilbert (1912) and David Enskog (1917,
1922). 78. For Your Favorite Library (review of Selected
Writings of Hermann von Helmholtz, edited by R. Kahl). The
Physics Teacher, 10: 288 (1972). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2352224
(Sub) 79. Review of Vorgeschichte des Planckschen
Strahlungsgesetzes by H. Kangro. Isis, 62: 555-6 (1971, pub. 1972). 80. Fowler, Ralph Howard (b. Roydon, Essex, England, 17 January 1889; d Cambridge, England, 28 July 1944), physics.
Dictionary
of Scientific Biography, 5: 102-3
(1972). See https://shar.es/1vpDaa for ebook purchase options for the DSB 81. History in the Teaching of Physics,
Proceedings of the International Working Seminar on The Role of the History of
Physics in Physics Education (Edited by SGB & Allen L. King). University
Press of New England, Hanover, N.H., 1972, xi + 116 pp. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page
To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
Includes
papers by M. J. Klein, G. Holton, C. Weiner, S. C. Brown. See item 57 for
summary of recommendations. 82. Mathematical Physics and Selected Papers
by John Herapath (edited by SGB) Johnson
Reprint Corporation, New York, 1972, xliii +372 + 374 + plates & tables +
273-93 + 340-51 + 401-16 + 6 pp. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
Editor’s
Introduction to the Reprint Edition, Notes and Bibliography (based in part on
items 5 and 23), pp. vii-xlii. Reprint of Mathematical Physics; or the
Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy: with a Development of the Causes
of Heat, Gaseous Elasticity, Gravitation, and Other Great Phenomena of Nature
(2 volumes, London, 1847); “A mathematical Inquiry into the Causes, Laws, and
Principal Phenomenae of Heat, Gases, Gravitation, etc.” (1821); “On Rail-Roads
(No. 1) with some Remarks on the Liverpool and Manchester Rail-Road (1836).
Herapath took advantage of his success in railway journalism to publish his
scientific work, which thereby became known to Joule, Maxwell, and William
Thomson. One of the results he derived from his kinetic theory, and published
in 1836, was the first explicit calculation of the speed of a gas molecule,
usually credited to Joule (1848). 83. Translation of Hans Kangro’s Introduction
and Notes to Planck’s Original Papers in Quantum Physics, German and
English edition, edited by Hans Kangro, pp. 32-34, 46-60. Taylor & Francis, London, 1972. To see ordering options and a snippet view of the book, go to
Google Books
84. The History of Science and its Place in a
Physics Course. (By S. C. Brown, D. Lindsay & SGB). In Teaching School Physics (A UNESCO Source
Book), edited by John L. Lewis, pp. 122-33. UNESCO,
Paris & Penguin Books, Baltimore, 1972, 122-33. To access book, see PDF
from UNESCO:
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000017/001793eo.pdf 85. Herapath, John (b Bristol, England, 30 May 1790; d. Lewisham, England, 24 February 1868). Dictionary
of Scientific Biography, 6: 291-3
(1972). See https://shar.es/1vpDaa for ebook purchase options for the DSB 86. Review of The Caloric Theory of Gases
from Lavoisier to Regnault by R. Fox. The
British Journal for the History of Science, 6: 218-20 (1972). https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400012437
(Sub) 87. Review of Molecular Reality by M. J.
Nye. Centaurus, 17: 174-5 (1973). 88. Letter to the
Editor
American Oxonian, 59, no. 4, part 1: 293-95
(October 1972). On
Rhodes Scholarships for women (“Fellowships for Women” are not good enough). 89. Introduction to Concepts and Theories in
Physical Science (by G. Holton & SGB), Second Edition Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA, 1973, xix + 589 pp. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options and a snippet view of the book, go to
Google Books
Corrected
reprint published by Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1985. Historically-oriented
textbook. The first edition was published by Holton in 1952. 90. J. D. van der Waals and the States of
Matter. The
Physics Teacher, 11: 261-70 (1973).
KMWCH https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2349996(Sub) In
1873, Johannes Diderik van der Waals (1837-1923) showed that the continuous
transition between gaseous and liquid states above the critical point can be
explained by his model of molecules with short-range repulsive and long-range
attractive forces. (The latter are now called “van der Waals forces.”) His
success showed that macroscopic properties (being a liquid or a gas) do not
require the introduction of new principles but can be “reduced” to microscopic
properties, and created a new subject, the theory of phase transitions based on
atomic models of matter. 91. Lennard-Jones, John Edward (b Leigh,
Lancashire, England, 27 October 1894; d. Stoke-on-Trent, England, 1
November 1954), theoretical physics, theoretical chemistry. Dictionary
of Scientific Biography, 8: 185-87
(1973). See https://shar.es/1vpDaa for ebook purchase options for the DSB 92. Some Relations between Planetary Science
and ‘Pure’ Science, and their Historical Development. Technology Studies
Bulletin (MIT), 1: 56-59; discussion 60-62 (May 1973) The
topic is discussed at greater length in items 98 and 142. 93. Review of Philosophy of Physics by
M. Bunge. Physics
Today, 26, no. 9: 61 (September
1973).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3128237(Sub) 94. The Development of the Kinetic Theory of
Gases, VII. Heat Conduction and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Archive for
History of Exact Sciences, 11: 328-96 (1973). KMWCH The
Dulong-Petit Law of Cooling. Heat Conduction in Gases before Maxwell.
Maxwell’s Kinetic Theory of Heat Conduction. Experimental Tests of Maxwell’s
Theory. The Temperature of the Sun. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The Three
Modes of Heat Transfer. Leslie’s Analysis of Heat Transfer. Derivation of the
T4 Law. 95. The Development of the Kinetic Theory of
Gases, VIII. Randomness and Irreversibility. Archive for History of Exact
Sciences, 12: 1-88 (1974). KMWCH The
World-Machine and Cosmic History. The Cooling of the Earth. The Second Law of
Thermodynamics and the Concept of Entropy. The Introduction of Statistical Ideas
in Kinetic Theory. Boltzmann’s Statistical Theory of Entropy. Molecular
Disorder. The Recurrence Paradox. Toward Quantum Theory: Planck’s
Irreversible Radiation Processes. 96. Should the History of Science be rated X? Science, 183: 1165-72 (1974). Reprinted in Theories in
Contemporary Psychology, edited by M. Marx and F. E. Goodson. Macmillan, New York, 1976, 66-86. Translation into Polish, in Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.183.4130.1164(Sub) Also
JSTOR The
way scientists behave (according to historians) might not be a good model for
students. Comments on the alleged experimental character of science and the
“scientific method” (especially in teaching non-science majors); revival of
interest in using history in science teaching; subversive aspects of the
history of science; examples showing that some famous scientists did not follow
the “scientific method”; the science teacher as “Whig historian.” 97. Myopia (review of The Man who Saw
through Time by L. Eiseley). The
Physics Teacher, 12: 184-5 (1974).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2350319(Sub) 98. Relations between Planetary Science and
“Pure” Science in the 19th Century. Proceedings
of the XIIIth International Congress of the History of Science (Moscow, August 18-24, 1971), Section VI, 343-51
(published 1974). Planetary
science has been assigned an inferior role compared to “pure” or “fundamental”
science, especially in modern physics and astronomy, but the situation was
quite different before the 19th century. Problems in planetary science
frequently provided a stimulus for discoveries in what we now call pure
science. The distinction between pure and planetary science arose in the 19th
century, in part due to the debate on the age of the Earth. Unfortunately, many
20th-century historians of science accepted the view that planetary science is
less important than pure science. C.
S. Gillmor, “The Place of the Geophysical Sciences in Nineteenth Century
Natural Philosophy,” Eos 56: 4-7 (1975), reporting a workshop on this
topic at the Hunt Foundation in Pittsburgh, March 14-17, 1974, includes on page
5 three paragraphs summarizing this paper, presented by SGB This summary is available:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1029/EO056i001p00004(Sub) 99. Irreversibility The
Encyclopedia of Physics, second
edition, edited by Robert M. Besancon, pp. 462-65. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1974. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page
To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
Kinetic
Theory. Ibid.,
pp. 479-83. 100. The Prayer Test.
American Scientist, 62: 561-3 (1974).
Reprinted in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 28: 11-14
(1976). Reprinted (in part) in Science Today (Bombay), 9, no. 8: 23-5
(Feb. 1975). The
proposal of a “scientific” experiment to determine the power of prayer kindled
a raging debate between Victorian men of science and theologians. 101. Review of Julius Robert Mayer by R.
B. Lindsay.
American Journal of Physics, 42: 920-21 (1974).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1987894(Sub) 102. A scientific experiment [letter to editor on
#100].
American Scientist, 63: 6-7 (1975). The
debate is still alive. 103. Review of German Nobel Prizewinners,
edited by A. Hermann; Otto Hahn 1879-1968 by E. Berninger; Johannes
Kepler 1571-1971 by W. von Braun, F. Abel and M. Brocker.
American Journal of Physics, 43: 287 (1975).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.9867(Sub) 104. A Study and Critique of the Teaching of the
History of Science and Technology. Interim Report by the Committee on
Undergraduate Education of the History of Science Society (U.S.A.) (By H. I.
Sharlin, chairman; SGB, H. L. Burstyn, S. Herbert, M. S. Mahoney, N. Sivin). Annals
of Science, 32: 55-70 (1975). https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033797500200561
(Sub) The
history of science of science and technology has been a scholarly discipline
with little attention given to the special needs of undergraduate teaching.
What needs to be done to transform a discipline to an undergraduate subject?
Suggestions include using the relation between science and technology as well
as the role of interpreters in formulation of the popular world view.
Relations with science and history departments are considered. Curriculum
materials are surveyed with some recommendations for correcting deficiencies. 105. [Discussion remark
on scientific revolutions]. In
"Copernicus Yesterday and Today, Proceedings of the Commemorative
Conference held in Washington in honor of Nicolaus Copernicus,” edited by A.
Beer and K. A. Strand. Vistas in Astronomy, 17: 131-2 (1975). https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0083-6656(75)90053-7
(Sub) Historians
should pay more attention to the very technical, apparently dreary aspect of
what the scientist does in the world of mathematical calculations, when he is
not worrying about “anomalies” that challenge his physical understanding. A
theory is often rationalized after it has been established
mathematically and is found to fit some of the data. 106. Publications in the History of Physics during
1973.
American Journal of Physics, 43: 850-60
(1975). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.9967
(Sub) Survey
of more than 50 books and 14 periodicals. The subjects most frequently
discussed were optics, ether, relativity, mechanics, and atomic or nuclear
physics. A survey of this literature is presented in the form of a
chronological review of relevant aspects of the history of physics, from
Chinese optics in the 5th century BC to the discovery of parity
conservation in the 20th century A.D. Brief comments are made on
current controversies among historians of science, such as the significance of
“anticipation’ of modern ideas in the writings of earlier scientists, and the
role of experiment in the work of Galileo and Einstein. The most important new
publication by a single author is James Bell’s The Experimental Foundations
of Solid Mechanics, a treatise that seems to have been ignored by most
historians of physics. 107. Report on Undergraduate Education in the
History of Science (by the Committee on Undergraduate Education of the
History of Science Society: SGB, H. L. Burstyn, S. Herbert, M. S. Mahoney, N.
Sivin, H. I. Sharlin, chairman). History
of Science Society, 1975, 56 pp. Expanded
version of item #104, with comments on the development of the history of
science profession, various situations of historians of science in academic
departments and programs, graduate training, and curriculum materials. 108. Review of Ludwig Boltzmann, Theoretical
Physics and Philosophical Problems, edited by B. McGuinness with a foreword
by S. R. De Groot and translations from the German by P. Foulkes. Annals
of Science, 32: 599-601 (1975). https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033797500200511 (Sub) 109 Education of Historians of Science in the U.S.A. Synthesis, 3, no. 2: 6-19 (1975). Based
on a 1973-74 survey, to which 12 graduate programs gave complete replies.
Results are compared with those published by R. French & M. Gross in 1973.
Typical M.A. and Ph.D. requirements are described, and comments on the
educational philosophy of the programs are quoted. About half of those who
become historians of science had an undergraduate major in science; history of
science graduate students are being taught by professors, less half of whom
have Ph. D.’s in that subject themselves. An unpublished appendix provides
detailed statistics for all programs that gave some response. 110. [Discussion remarks on the history of
Brownian movement]. Proceedings
of the American Academy Workshop on the Evolution of Modern Mathematics
(Boston, August 1974), ed. Birkhoff and Garwood. Historia Mathematica,
2: 598-9 (1975). Elsevier ScienceDirect (Open Archive-Free) 111. Can Science come out of the Laboratory now?
Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists, 32, no. 4:
40-3 (April 1976). Reprinted
(with omissions) in Dialogue (U.S. Information Agency), 10, no. 2: 77-83
(1977). Also in Encyclopedia Science Supplement 77/78, Grolier, pp.
277-82. Google Books(Archived Issue appears to be free) Francis
Bacon, John Dalton, Gregor Mendel and Albert Einstein: What counts (contrary to
Francis Bacon and his modern followers) is not the accumulation of data but the
brilliant insight that reveals the regularity lying hidden beneath the chaos of
superficial appearances. 112. Waterston, John James. Dictionary
of Scientific Biography, 14: 184-6
(1976). See https://shar.es/1vpDaa for ebook purchase options for the DSB 113. Review of Sources for the History of
Science 1660-1914 by D. M. Knight.
American Historical Review, 81: 558-9 (1976).
https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/81.3.558-a (Sub) Also
JSTOR 114. The Kind of Motion we call Heat: A
History of the Kinetic Theory of Gases in the 19th Century. North-Holland
Pub. Co., Amsterdam, 1976, xxxix + 769 pp. Reprinted 1986. Introductory
survey. Personalities (based on items 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 23, 42, 51, 90).
Problems (based on items 12, 18, 37, 43, 58, 59, 94, 95). Bibliography
(covering 1801-1900). See
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/The_Kind_of_Motion_We_Call_Heat.html Winner
of the Pfizer Award (History of Science Society) for the best book on history
of science published in 1976 115. Introduccion a los conceptos y teorias de
las ciencias fisicas. (Spanish translation of item 89). Editorial
Reverte, Barcelona, 1976, xxii + 841 pp. 2004 reprint of 1987 edition of Spanish translation can be ordered at
Editorial Reverte
116. Irreversibility and Indeterminism: Fourier
to Heisenberg. Journal
of the History of Ideas, 37: 603-30
(1976). SPATM. KTG. By
1800, the cyclic “Newtonian clockwork universe,” rejected by Newton himself,
was being challenged by research on the cooling of the Earth. J. B. J.
Fourier, inspired in part by this problem, was the first to establish a
quantitative theory in which a physical process is not time-reversible (heat
conduction). The conflict between that theory and the time-reversibility of Newton’s laws became inescapable in the late 19th century when physicists tried to derive
the Second Law of Thermodynamics from an atomistic model based on Newtonian
mechanics. Maxwell and Boltzmann tried to do this by assuming that atoms
behave as if they move randomly. With the success of kinetic theory and statistical
mechanics, the phrase “as if” was forgotten, so when Einstein, Rutherford, Schrödinger, Born and Heisenberg explicitly postulated indeterminism at the
atomic level, other physicists didn’t have much difficulty accepting it. 117. More on the Spinthariscope. The
Physics Teacher, 14: 469: 518 (1976). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2339461 (Sub) According
to a famous (but probably false) story, the spinthariscope persuaded Ernst Mach
that atoms exist. 118. The Founding Fathers (review of S. Weart, ed., Selected Papers of Great American Physicists). The
Physics Teacher, 14: 519 (1976). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2339482 (Sub) 119. Review of Energy: Historical Development
of the Concept, edited by R. B. Lindsay. Annals
of Science, 33: 611-12 (1976). https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033797600200531
(Sub) 120. A Reprint of Your Own. The
Sciences, 17, no. 2: 28 (March/April
1977).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2326-1951.1977.tb01515.x
(Sub) In
the evaluation of grant applications, reports on research already done should
count more than promises of research to be done in the future. 121. Review of The Solvay Conferences on
Physics by J. Mehra.
American Scientist, 65: 93-94 (1977). 122. Review of Landmark Experiments in
Twentieth Century Physics by G. Trigg. Isis, 68: 165 (1977). 123. Physics. Encyclopedia Americana (1977 edition), vol. “P”: 49-56. 124. Review of Joseph Fourier by J.
Herivel. Historia
Mathematica, 4: 219-21 (1977). Elsevier ScienceDirect (Open Archive-Free) 125. Review of Method and Appraisal in the
Physical Sciences, edited by C. Howson.
American Journal of Physics, 45: 687-8 (1977). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.10794 (Sub) 126. The Origin of the Planetesimal Theory. Origins
of Life, 8: 3-6 (1977). HMPP T.
C. Chamberlin suggested in 1898 that the planets were formed by accretion of
cold solid particles. With F. R. Moulton he developed a comprehensive
“planetesimal theory” of the origin of the solar system (1905). See item #134
for details.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00930932
(Sub) 127. Review of Lowell and Mars by W. G.
Hoyt. Origins
of Life, 8: 175-6 (1977).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00927983
(Sub) 128. The Search for Quality in University
Research Programmes (Essay Review of books by D. E. Drew, R. S. Karpf, and W.
P. Dolan). Social
Studies of Science, 7: 395-400
(1977).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631277700700309
(Sub) Also
JSTOR Topics
include: Are we getting our money’s worth from funded research? The effect of
dollars (from the U. S. Government Science Development program) on
publications. The effect of Ratings on Education. 129. Review of Science Development by D.
E. Drew. Isis, 68: 667-8 (1977). 130. Statistical Mechanics and the Philosophy of
Science. PSA
1976, Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association meeting at Chicago,
October 1976, edited by F. Suppe
& P. D. Asquith, pp. 551-584. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing , MI, 1977. SPATM. KTG. Philosophical
discussions of “reduction” often cite the example of thermodynamics (especially
the Second Law) and kinetic theory/statistical mechanics, but with inadequate
justification. A better example is the theory of phase transitions (initiated
by J. D. van der Waals), whose success refutes the dogma that one has to
introduce new fundamental postulates to explain higher levels of reality
(macroscopic > microscopic). Historical examples also contradict the view
that reductionism is bad, or that an entity loses something when it is
“reduced” -- instead we usually gain something in our understanding of nature,
including a more precise limit on the domain of validity of the reduced
theory, in exchange for the loss of arbitrary or incomprehensible aspects. 131. Idea of Divine Element in Man (XT) (Letter
to Editor). Chemical
& Engineering News, 56, no. 2: 44
(Jan. 9, 1978).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cen-v056n002.p004 (Sub) Quotes
views of John Herschel and William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) on evolution. 132. Why Chemistry needs History-–and How it can
Get Some. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 7:
288-91 (1978). Chemists,
compared with physicists, show remarkably little interest in the history of
their own discipline. This may be a consequence of the supposed “empirical”
nature of chemistry, a supposition that is refuted by historical research.
(The anti-theoretical attitude may be connected with the fact that modern
chemical theory is derived from physical theory, i.e. quantum mechanics.)
Since the conference at which this paper was presented (“The History of
Chemistry in Chemical Education,” Madison, 1976) revealed a widespread desire
to change this situation, I present some specific recommendations and a short
bibliography of sources. 133. Response to Book Review: The Kind of
Motion We Call Heat. Journal
of Statistical Physics, 18: 525-528
(1978). Reply
to L. Tisza, whose review in this journal is based on his own version of the
history of caloric theory and thermodynamics -- a version not supported by
historical research. 134. A Geologist among Astronomers: The Rise and
Fall of the Chamberlin-Moulton Cosmogony. Journal
for the History of Astronomy, 9:
1-41, 77-104 (1978). HMPP Available free through SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System Part 1:https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1978JHA.....9....1B/abstract
Available free through SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System Part 2:https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1978JHA.....9...77B/abstract
Introduction.
Planetary cosmogony at the end of the 19th century. The assault on the Nebular
Hypothesis (T. C. Chamberlin & F. R. Moulton). Competing theories
1901-1912 (S. Arrhenius, P. Lowell, T. J. J. See). The Planetesimal
Hypothesis. Its reception. Theories of J. H. Jeans and H. Jeffreys. Decline
of the Chamberlin-Moulton theory. Relevance to philosophical/historical
theories of T. S. Kuhn, I. Lakatos, L. Darden & N. Maull. 135. Nettie M. Stevens and the Discovery of Sex
Determination by Chromosomes. Isis, 69: 163-72 (1978). Reprinted in History of Women
in the Sciences, edited by S. G. Kohlstedt, pp. 336-46. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1999. Stevens
(1861-1912) is sometimes linked with Edmund B. Wilson (1856-1939 as
co-discoverer in 1905 of the role of X and Y chromosomes in sex determination.
However, Wilson happened to choose a species in which the male has one less
chromosome than the female (Anasa tristis), whereas Stevens worked with
the much more common case in which the male has a small chromosome (Y)
corresponding to the large chromosome (X) in the female (she studied the
mealworm, Tenebrio molitor). Moreover, unpublished documents suggest
that Wilson probably did not arrive at his result until after he had seen
Stevens’. Her paper was submitted for publication first but his was published
first; in view of his position on the editorial board of the Journal of
Experimental Zoology and the fact that his paper was published there with a
time lag of only 3 months compared to 8 months for hers (published by the
Carnegie Institution of Washington), it does not seem that he deserves
priority. Moreover, his paper suggested that other factors than chromosomes
may affect sex, while hers was quite definite on that point. In later years
Wilson, who was much better known, got more credit for the discovery, as a
result of the “Matthew Effect.” 136. Review of Creation by Natural Law by
R. L. Numbers. Journal
for the History of Astronomy, 9:
70-71 (1978). Available free through SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1978JHA.....9...71B/abstract
137. The Use of History (XT) [Letter to the
Editor]. The
Physics Teacher, 16: 424 (1978). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2340012
(Sub) Comment
on letter by M. H. Kagan & E. Mendoza, ibid. p. 225, on textbook
presentations of the history of relativity. 138. Review of Briefwechsel zwischen Alexander
von Humboldt und Carl Friedrich Gauss, edited by K.-R. Biermann. Isis, 69: 629 (1978). 139. Scientific Revolutionaries of 1905:
Einstein, Rutherford, Chamberlin, Wilson, Stevens, Binet, Freud. Rutherford
and Physics at the Turn of the Century, edited by M. Bunge & W. R.
Shea, pp. 140-71. Science History Publications, New York, 1979. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options and a snippet view of the book, go to
Google Books
In
1905, Albert Einstein published 3 famous papers; Ernest Rutherford showed that
one could use radioactivity to estimate minimum ages of rocks, the Earth, and
the Sun; T. C. Chamberlin, with F. R. Moulton, published an influential theory
of the origin of the solar system (see item #134); Nettie Stevens and E. B.
Wilson independently discovered the chromosome mechanism for sex determination
(# 135); Alfred Binet , with T. Simon, published the psychological procedure
that later became the IQ test; Sigmund Freud shocked civilized society with his
Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex. A common factor linking these
revolutionary events is a change in the perception of time, from an absolute,
uniformly-flowing, independent variable to a contingent, discrete variable
dependent on random events. 140. The Temperature of History: Phases of
Science and Culture in the Nineteenth Century. Burt
Franklin & Co., New York, 1978 (pub. 1979), ix + 210 pp. German
translation, Die Temperatur der Geschichte: Wissenschaftliche und kulturelle
Phasen im 19. Jahrhundert, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden,
1987. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options and a snippet view of the book, go to
Google Books
Revised
and expanded version of item #33, including item #142. 141. Comments on “On the Distortion of the
History of Science in Science Education” [by Harvey Siegel]. Science
Education, 63: 277-278 (1979). https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730630217
(Sub) Further
Comments on Siegel on Brush. Ibid. 64: 123 (1980) https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730640116
(Sub) On
Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions, which has been criticized for its
stress on subjective or social factors, but (as shown by Owen Gingerich in the
case of the Copernican Revolution) may instead give too much weight to objective
factors. How should we explain to students why a new paradigm was accepted by
scientists (in the case of quantum mechanics as well as heliocentric astronomy)
before they had the evidence that now provides its rational justification? 142. Planetary Science: From Underground to
Underdog. Scientia, 113: 771-787 (1978, pub. 1979). HMPP Italian
translation, ibid., pp. 789-804 Expanded
version of item #98, with comments on the increased prestige of planetary
science after 1970. 143. Nineteenth-Century Debates about the Inside
of the Earth: Solid, Liquid or Gas? Annals
of Science, 36: 225-254 (1979). HMPP
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033797900200231
(Sub) In
the first part of the 19th century, geologists explained volcanoes, earthquakes
and mountain-formation on the assumption that the Earth has a large molten core
under a very thin (25-50 mile) solid crust. This assumption was attacked on
astronomical grounds by William Hopkins, who argued that the crust must be at
least 800 miles thick, and on physical grounds by William Thomson, who showed
that the Earth as a whole behaves like a solid with high rigidity. Others
insisted that there is evidence for a fluid or plastic layer just below the
crust. It was also suggested that the interior of the Earth is a supercritical
fluid. By the end of the century many geologists had accepted the doctrine of a
completely solid Earth. (For later research see item #152). 144. Energetic Mancunian (review of James
Prescott Joule and the Concept of Energy by H. J. Steffens) Nature,
281: 714 (1979)
https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/281714a0 (Sub) 145. Marvelous bedtime reading for physicists
(XT) (review of Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford by S. C.
Brown). Physics Today,
32, no. 11: 55, 58 (Nov. 1979)
https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2995278 (Sub) 146. The AAUP: Views of
its Status and of its Censure of the University of Maryland (by SGB & F.
Suppe) Chronicle
of Higher Education, 16 July 1979, p.
13. The American Association of University Professors made a disastrous blunder in
censuring the University of Maryland for its refusal to appoint Bertell Ollman
as chairman of its political science department. The AAUP’s own investigative
committee recommended against censure, and there is no evidence that academic
freedom was violated. But academic freedom may be violated in other cases if
AAUP dilutes its moral strength by voting censure without valid reasons.
[Ollman lost his lawsuit against the University.] 147. Rewards for referees? Physics
Today, 33, no. 2: 13 (Feb. 1980)
https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2913927 (Sub) It’s
hard to get referees to submit prompt and thorough reports. Since referees are
presumably chosen because they are reputable scientists doing research that
might be published in the same journal, they might be motivated by an offer of
the right to publish one paper without substantive refereeing. In
reply, the Editor of Physical Review Letters calls this proposed reward
“meretricious.” 148. Poincaré and Cosmic evolution. Physics
Today, 33 (3): 42-49 (March 1980).
HMPP
https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2913996 (Sub) Chinese
translation in Science and Philosophy, 2: 52-72 (1982). Among
his other, better known, studies this 19th-century “mathematical naturalist”
enquired into the origin and stability of the Solar System, the fate of the
Universe and the shapes of rotating fluid masses. His view was characteristic
of the late 19th century: physical processes are gradual and irreversible; discontinuous
changes obviously occur, but only when really necessary and then not in a
catastrophic manner. 149. Looking Up: The Rise of Astronomy in America.
American Studies, 20, no. 2: 41-67 (Fall 1979,
pub. April 1980).
https://journals.ku.edu/amsj/article/view/2246/2205 (Free) Historians
have underestimated the interest of 19th-century Americans in astronomy (not
“American astronomy,” a misnomer), and have neglected to explain how the U.S.
managed to rise to world leadership in a relatively “pure” branch of science
well before the influx of European scientists in the 1930s, which is usually
credited with producing our post-1945 superiority in fundamental research. In
addition to the achievements of individual men (E. E. Barnard, H. Draper, G. E.
Hale, A. Hall, G. W. Hill, J. Keeler, P. Lowell, S. Newcomb, E. C. Pickering,
H. N. Russell, E. P. Hubble, M. L. Humason, L. M. Rutherfurd, H. Shapley, V. M.
Slipher), one should note the role of social factors, such as the opportunities
for women to make discoveries (A. J. Cannon, W. P. Fleming, H. S. Leavitt, A.
Maury, M. Mitchell, C. Payne[-Gaposchkin]) and the willingness of rich Americans to pay for large telescopes ( J. D. Hooker, J. Lick, C. T. Yerkes,
and the foundations endowed by Carnegie and Rockefeller). 150. Einstein and Indeterminism. Journal
of the Washington Academy of Sciences,
69, no. 3: 89-94 (1979, pub. April 1980). Schrödinger’s
famous “cat paradox” (1935) makes, rather more vividly, the same point that
Einstein had been pressing against Bohr since 1927: however accurate quantum
mechanics (QM) may be in predicting the results of experiments, it fails to
give an acceptable description of reality, i.e. of an objectively-existing
world. Bohr replied: one can’t expect QM to give such a description because
there is none. By general agreement Einstein “lost” the debate; yet anyone who
believes that the physical world exists independently of his or her own
observation of it must hesitate just a bit before applauding the victor. 151. History of Science: Rebuilding the Bridges.
(Editorial) Journal
of College Science Teaching, 10: 13
(1980). Introduction
to an issue on history in science education. History of science, which was
originally a form of (or adjunct to) science education, has become an
independent discipline. Now, having passed through the stage of adolescent
rebellion and attained professional maturity, it can and should rebuild bridges
to the sciences. Sociologists
Ponder Scientists (review of The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge,
edited by E. Mendelsohn et al.) Journal
of College Science Teaching, 9, no. 4
(March 1980): 230. 152. Discovery of the Earth’s Core.
American Journal of Physics, 48: 705-24
(1980). HMPP
https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.12026 (Sub) In
1896 when E. Wiechert proposed his model of the Earth with an iron core and
stony shell, scientists believed that the entire Earth was a solid as rigid as
steel (see #143). R. D. Oldham’s identification of seismic P and S waves
allowed him to detect a discontinuity at the boundary between core and shell
(mantle) in 1906, and B. Gutenberg established the depth of this boundary as
2900 km. But failure to detect propagation of S waves through the core was not
sufficient to persuade seismologists that it is fluid (contrary to modern
textbook statements). Not until 1926 H. Jeffreys refute the arguments for
solidity and establish that the core is fluid. In 1936 Inge Lehmann discovered
the small inner core. K. E. Bullen argued, on the basis of plausible arguments
about compressibility and density, that the inner core is solid. Attempts to
find seismic signals that have passed through the inner core as S waves have so
far (with one possible exception) failed, but analysis of free oscillations
provided fairly convincing evidence for the core’s solidity. 153. The Chimerical Cat: Philosophy of Quantum
Mechanics in Historical Perspective. Social
Studies of Science, 10: 393-447
(1980).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631278001000401
(Sub) Also
JSTOR The
establishment of the Heisenberg-Schrödinger quantum mechanics (QM) in 1926
might have made the metaphysical conclusions associated with QM a major part of
our present view of the world. But two of these conclusions -- indeterminism,
and the denial of independent reality to atomic properties -- are not unique to
QM, but emerged from historical trends begun in the 19th century. This paper
postulates cyclic oscillation between “Romantic” and “Realist” periods in
science and culture (see #140), and ascribes a gradual breakdown of determinism
to debates about irreversibility (#116). Einstein’s opposition to the
“Copenhagen Interpretation” of QM was based on a preference for realism as much
as a dislike for indeterminism, and the “Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox” was a
formidable challenge to subjectivist instrumentalism. Following the revival of
realist interpretations in the 1950s (cf. the shift from valence bond to
molecular orbital theory in quantum chemistry, #279), new experiments seem to
have reconfirmed the subjectivist view. But there is currently strong
disagreement on what kind of subjectivism is scientifically legitimate; John
Wheeler’s version of the “Anthropic Principle” and parapsychological
explanations both conflict with the naive realism that has dominated the
Western intellectual tradition since the 17th century. The “anti-science”
movement of the past 10 years seems to indicate a breakdown of the historic
alliance between mechanism and political radicalism within Realism [cf. #283]. 154. Textbook Prices.
(Letter to Editor) Chronicle
of Higher Education, 7 July 1980, p.
19. Some
textbook publishers will no longer announce prices in Books in Print but
let them be set by individual stores. This policy will produce much confusion
and probably decrease sales; as an instructor I would not adopt a text (not
already stocked by the bookstore) without knowing its price. 155. How can we explain physics? (Letter to
Editor)
American Journal of Physics, 49: 106 (1981).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.12533
(Sub) We
should be able to give students simple answers to questions like: Why and how
does the Earth turn? Why does a watched pot never boil? Why does a cat have 9
lives? Sources for the answers are cited. 156. From Bump to Clump: Theories of the Origin
of the Solar System 1900-1960. In Space
Science Comes of Age, Perspectives in the history of the Space Sciences
edited by P. A. Hanle & V. D. Chamberlain, pp. 78-100. National Air and
Space Museum/Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 1981 HMPP. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options and a snippet view of the book, go to
Google Books
On
3 men who had major impacts on modern theories of planetary formation: T. C..
Chamberlin, H. N. Russell, and H. C. Urey. 1. Nebulae, Planetesimals, and the
Big Bump. 2. Astrophysics Strikes Back. 3. Intermission (relevant research
1935-45 that supported later theories). 4. A Nebula that Clumps and Coughs? 157. Review of A Source Book in Astronomy and
Astrophysics, 1900-1975, edited by K. R. Lang & O. Gingerich. Isis, 72: 119-20 (1981). 158. Statement of Professor Brush: The Scientific
Value of High Energy Physics. In Quests
with U.S. Accelerators -- 50 Years. The High Energy Physics and Nuclear
Physics Research Programs, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy Research
and Production of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives, July 23, 1980, pp. 63-89, 462-63. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1980. PDF of hearing can be found at Rutgers School of Law site:
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/gdoc/hearings/8/81601187/81601187_1.pdf Revised
version published as “The Scientific Value of High Energy Physics”. Annals
of Nuclear Energy 8: 133-40 (1981).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0306-4549(81)90109-2
(Sub) Discusses
2 aspects of the role of accelerators in the development of modern physical
science: (1) the increasing prominence of high energy/elementary particle
physics relative to other areas of physics, with suggestions about how the
significance and cost of discoveries in different areas of science might be
estimated; (2) the justification of substantial funding for this kind of
research on the grounds that it is “fundamental” to science, with remarks on
the change in judgments of fundamentality from a long-term historical
perspective. 159. Creationism/Evolution: The Case against
“Equal Time.” Science
Teacher, 48 (4): 29-33 (April 1981). Teachers
should speak out, to preserve the right to teach primarily what the vast majority
of biologists accept as science; some may wish to mention discredited
alternatives to accepted views but should not be forced (as several states are
now doing) to pretend that those alternatives merit serious consideration. The
main issue is: have the present forms of life evolved from much simpler forms
over a billion years or so, or were they all created (along with the entire
universe) about 6,000 years ago? The emptiness of creationist arguments is
shown by their response to the evidence that most stars are much more than
10,000 light years away, so they (and therefore the universe) must have existed
more than 10,000 years ago. Creationists say: God created starlight in space,
in such a way that it appears to have come from stars but did not actually do
so! Such arguments are not only unscientific, they imply that God deceives us
about the nature of the world. Other arguments for creationism and against
evolution are similarly flimsy. Creationism/Evolution
[reply to letters, October 1981 issue] Ibid. 49 (1): 14-15 (January 1982). Editor’s
comment “Creation Science is not Science,” ibid. 49 (2): 23 (February
1982), on Judge William Overton’s decision overturning the Arkansas creationist
law, quotes SGB Newspaper
reports on public lecture at University of Maryland (March 10, 1981): “Creation
vs. Evolution: Should Public Schools be Forced to Give Equal Time to
Creationism in Science Classes?” The
Sun, Baltimore, 11 March 1981, page
C4; Daily Mail, Hagerstown, MD, 11 March 1981; The Diamondback (University
of Maryland student newspaper), 13 March 1981, page 8. Flier. Columbia, MD, April 23. The Sun, Howard County edition, 19 April 1981. 160. Review of A World on Paper by E.
Bellone, and The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics, 1822-1854 by C.
A. Truesdell. Isis, 72: 284-86 (1981). 161. Earth’s Cores. Science, 213: 950 (1981). Correction
of historical errors concerning discovery of outer and inner cores. Use of
initials rather than first names conceals the fact that one of the most
interesting features of the Earth’s structure was discovered by a woman (Inge
Lehmann). 162. Letter to Editor [on Physics and
Creationism] Physics
and Society, 10, no. 4: 10 (October
1981).
https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/upload/october81.pdf
(Free) Supports
E. Callen’s proposal that physicists should participate in the
creation/evolution debate, since creationists mangle physics as well as
biology. Scepticism,
Science, and Belief. Lecture
at Paint Branch Unitarian Church, Silver Spring, MD, 13 December 1981. 163. Nietzsche’s Recurrence Revisited: the French
connection. Journal
of the History of Philosophy, 19:
235-38 (1981). Discussion
of F. Nietzsche’s “Eternal Recurrence” often ignores the fact that this idea
was being debated by physicists and mathematicians in the late 19th century .
It was presented as a theorem by H. Poincaré, who explicitly related it to the
Second Law of Thermodynamics (1893), as did E. Zermelo in his debate with L.
Boltzmann (1896-97). Nietzsche misunderstood the relations between recurrence,
the heat death, and the mechanical world-view. 164. (Resolution of the Council of the American Astronomical Society on Creationism, adopted unanimously at its meeting on 10
January 1982.) Anonymous
publication. The resolution was drafted by SGB and presented by Frank J. Kerr
to the AAS Council. During
the past year, religious fundamentalists have intensified their effort to force
public school science classes to include instruction in “creationism.” ... this
doctrine includes the statement that the entire universe was created relatively
recently, i.e. less than 10,000 years ago. This statement contradicts results
of astronomical research ... We agree with the findings of Judge William
Overton that the Arkansas creationism law represents an unconstitutional
intrusion of religious doctrine into the public schools... The American Astronomical Society deplores the attempt to force creationism into public
schools and urges Congress, all state legislatures, local school boards and
textbook publishers to resist such attempts. 165. Never subject to revision. (XT) Baltimore Sun, 20
January 1982, p. All. On
creationism, an antiscientific theory that is “dogmatic, absolutist and never
subject to revision” in the words of Judge Overton, striking down the Arkansas law that would have mandated its teaching in public schools. Testimony
presented to the Committee on Constitutional and Administrative Law, Maryland
House of Delegates, 25 February 1982, opposing H. B. 1078, an “equal time”
law. 166. Finding the Age of the Earth: By Physics or
by Faith? Journal
of Geological Education, 30: 34-58
(1982). Reprinted
in Evolution versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy,
edited by J. P. Zetterberg, pp. 296-349. (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1983).
See also item #177. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-30.1.34
(Sub) To order book used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options and a snippet view of the book, go to
Google Books
Creationists
challenge the conclusion, generally accepted by scientists, that the Earth is 3
to 5 billion years old -- in part to support their biblical cosmogony, and in
part because Darwinian evolution, which they oppose, requires a long time
scale. Scientific estimates are based on radiometric dating, involving the
decay of uranium isotopes. The current value, 4.5 billion years, was first
obtained in the 1950s by C. C. Patterson et al., based on a method developed by
A. Holmes and F. G. Houtermans. Examination of creationist criticisms of this
method shows that every one of their objections is based on ignorance or
misunderstanding of physical facts, or on rejection of well-established
theories such as quantum mechanics or relativity. A creationist estimate of
10,000 years, based on the decay of the Earth’s magnetic field, is completed
refuted by empirical data and is incompatible with all currently-accepted
principles of geomagnetism. Finding
the Age of the Earth – By Physics or by Faith? Presented
at the Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society, Washington, DC, April 26-29, 1982, in Symposium of the Committee on Education on “Creationism and
Science Education in America.” Abstract
published in Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 27 (1982): 464. 167. Review of Proceedings of the 1978 Pisa conference on the History and Philosophy of Science, Volumes I and II, edited by
J. Hintikka et al. Annals
of Science, 39: 78-80 (1982). https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033798200200131
(Sub) Review
of ibid., Volume II, Probabilistic Thinking, Thermodynamics, and the
Interaction of the History and Philosophy of Science Isis 73: 286-87 (1982) 168. Review of Sir William Rowan Hamilton, by T. L. Hankins. Albion, 13: 315-16 (1982). https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4048861
(Sub) 169. Creationism/Evolution (response to query) Crossroads
-- Science Meets Society, 2, no. 1:
10-11 (Feb. 1982). 170. G. K. Gilbert (review of Pyne, Grove Karl
Gilbert and The Scientific Ideas of G. K. Gilbert, edited by E. L.
Yochelson) Journal
for the History of Astronomy, 13:
71-72 (1982). Available free through SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1982JHA....13...71Y/abstract
171. Kelvin was not a Creationist. Creation/Evolution, 8: 11-14 (1982).
https://ncse.ngo/kelvin-was-not-creationist
(Free) Creationists
cannot find any significant support for their doctrine in the modern scientific
community so they assert that famous scientists of the past were creationists.
Henry Morris, Director of the Institute for Creation Research, included William
Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) in his list. He was unable to provide any
evidence, when I asked for it, that Kelvin was a creationist. In Kelvin’s 1871
address he rejected creationism and accepted evolution, although he rejected
natural selection and speculated that life on Earth evolved from seeds carried
by meteorites from another world. Even after being informed of this statement,
Morris continued to list Kelvin as a creationist in later publications. 172. Nickel for your Thoughts: Urey and the
Origin of the Moon. Science, 217: 891-98 (1982). HMPP
https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.217.4563.891(Sub) Also
JSTOR The
theories of Harold C. Urey (1893-1981) are discussed in relation to earlier
ideas, especially G. H. Darwin’s fission hypothesis. Urey’s espousal of the
idea that the Moon had been captured by the Earth and has preserved information
about the earliest history of the Solar System led him to advocate a manned
lunar landing. Results from the Apollo missions, in particular the deficiency
of siderophile elements (such as nickel) in the lunar crust, led him to abandon
the capture selenogony and tentatively adopt the fission hypothesis. Urey’s
Scientific Lineage (reply to letter from J. Bigeleisen) Ibid. 220: 1002 (1983)
https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.220.4601.1002-b(Sub) Also
JSTOR Identity
of Urey’s thesis adviser; his connection with the Atomic Energy Commission. Harold
Urey and the Origin of the Moon: The Interaction of Science and the Apollo
Program. (Presented
at the 20th Goddard Memorial Symposium, March 1982). Spacelab,
Space Platforms and the Future,
edited by Peter M. Bainum and Dietrich E. Koelle (Advances in the Astronautical
Sciences, volume 49), pp. 437-70. San Diego, CA: American Astronautical
Society, 1982. To order from the publisher, go to
Univelt, Inc. (Hard Cover) To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options and a snippet view of the book, go to
Google Books
173. Review of The Social Basis of Scientific
Discoveries by A. Brannigan. Journal
of Interdisciplinary History, 13:
339-41 (1982). 174. Before Einstein (review of Energy, Force,
and Matter by P. M. Harman). Nature, 299: 845 (1982).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/299845b0(Sub) 175. Chemical History of the Earth’s Core. EOS,
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 63: 1185-6, 1188 (1982).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1029/EO063i047p01185(Sub) Review
of earlier ideas about the physical structure of Earth, from the 19th
century to the present (see #143 & #152). Following the determination of
the outer core boundary by B. Gutenberg abnd the establishment of the fluidity
of the core by H. Jeffreys, the current model for the overall physical
structure was completed by Inge Lehmann’s discovery of the inner core and the
proposal by F. Birch and K. E. Bullen that the inner core is solid. The
traditional assumption that the core is primarily iron was challenged by
several scientists in the 1940s, especially W. H. Ramsey, who proposed that the
core boundary marks a change in physical but not chemical state. His
hypothesis that the core is a liquid “metallized silicate” was refuted by research
on the properties of silicates at high pressures, but it raised the question
whether a theory of the present state of the Earth’s interior should be
consistent with some plausible theory of its origin and development. While
Western geophysicists tended to ignore this criterion, a group of Russian
scientists developed a theory that satisfied it, although it was difficult to
maintain the metallized silicate hypothesis. A compromise involved iron and
oxygen in proportions chosen to satisfy density conditions but also derivable
by physicochemical evolution from an initially homogeneous Earth. 176. Review of Conceptions of Ether,
edited by G. N. Cantor & M. J. S. Hodge Philosophy
of Science 49: 655-56 (1982) 177. Ghosts from the Nineteenth Century: Creationist
Arguments for a Young Earth. In Scientists
Confront Creationism, edited by L. R. Godfrey, pp. 49-84. New York: W. W. Norton, 1983 To order used through Amazon.com and see a preview, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options and another preview, go to
Google Books
Short
version of #166, with additional section refuting recent paper by T. G. Barnes
on origin of Moon. 178. Creationism and Education in the Physical
Sciences. In Creationism,
Science, and the Law: The Arkansas Case, edited by Marcel Chotkowski La
Follette, pp. 174-84, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1983. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
If
“equal-time” laws recently enacted in Arkansas and Louisiana were enforced,
they would have a major impact not only on high school biology courses but also
on Earth Science and Astronomy, since any discussion of the multi-billion year
development of the Earth and the Universe in those courses would be considered “evolution
science’ and would have to be “balanced” by presenting creationist doctrines
that assume creation less than 10,000 years ago. Standard material in a
physics course would also be affected. Relations of the controversy to
philosophy and history of science are discussed. 179. Review of Gauss: A Biographical Study
by W.K. Bühler. Physics
Today, 36, no. 3: 72, 74 (March
1983).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2915548(Sub) 180. Negativism Sesquicentennial. In The
Limits of Lawfulness: Studies on the Scope and Nature of Scientific Knowledge,
edited by Nicholas Rescher, pp. 3-22. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1983. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options and a snippet view of the book, go to
Google Books
“Positivism,”
a movement started by August Comte 150 years ago, glorified science yet
attempted to limit its scope so severely as to discourage some scientists from
seeking knowledge that was in fact attainable. Negativism, exemplified by
statements that “science can never find out X” or “scientists can never do Y,”
persists despite an astonishing sequence of discoveries of
supposedly-unknowable X’s and performances of supposedly-impossible Y’s.
Comte’s most notorious claim was that the study of the universe beyond our own
Solar System is useless because we will never be able to learn the distances,
motions, physical or chemical properties of the stars. Astronomers began to
obtain such knowledge within a few decades of his claim. His negativism may be
partly responsible for the decline of French theoretical physics in the 19th
century. 181. Statistical Physics and the Atomic Theory
of Matter, from Boyle and Newton to Landau and Onsager. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1983. ix + 356 pp. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
Early
Development of the Kinetic Theory of Gases. Irreversibility and Indeterminism
(revised version of item #116]. The Quantum Theory. Quantum Mechanical
Properties of Matter. Interatomic Forces and the Chemical Bon (includes
revised version of #58). Phase Transitions and the Critical Point (includes
revised version of #38) Statistical Mechanics and the Philosophy of Science
(revised version of #130). 182. Maxwell on Saturn’s Rings. James Clerk
Maxwell’s Unpublished Manuscripts and Letters on the Stability of Saturn’s
Rings, Edited by SGB, C. W. F. Everitt & Elizabeth Garber. The
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1983. xiii + 199 pp. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
Introduction.
Correspondence of Maxwell with Lewis Campbell, R. B. Litchfield, Cecil J.
Munro, William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and others; On the Stability of the
Motion of Saturn’s Rings by Maxwell, and drafts of this essay; George
Biddell Airy’s review. 183. Changes in the Concept of Time during the
Second Scientific Revolution In Ludwig
Boltzmann Gesamtausgabe VIII. Internationale Tagung anlässlich des 75.
Jahrestages seines Todes, 1981. Ausgewählte Abhandlungen, herausgegeben
von Roman Sexl & John Blackmore, pp. 305-28. Graz: Akademische Druck-u.
Verlagsanstalt; Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, 1982 (pub.
1983). To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page Historicism
and Time in the 19th Century. Irreversibility in Heat Theory. Boltzmann’s
theory of “memory” in physical processes. Evolution in the Solar System.
Biological Evolution and Thermodynamics. Time after Boltzmann. 184. The History of Modern Physics, An
International Bibliography (by SGB and Lanfranco Belloni) Garland
Publishing, Inc., New York, 1983. xix + 334 pp. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
Introduction.
General and Miscellaneous Works. Biographies. Social and Institutional
History. Mechanics (including Thermodynamics and Kinetic Theory, Low and High
Temperature Physics, Solid State and Plasma Physics). Electricity and
Megnatism. Relativity and Cosmology. Optics and Electromagnmetic Waves.
Quantum Theory. X-Rays, Radioactivity, Particle and Nuclear Physics. Physics
and Philosophy. Cultural Influences of Physics. Research in History of Modern
Physics and its Use in Education, etc. 185. Physics, Philosophy, and Pseudoscience:
Perspectives on the Creation-Evolution controversy. Proceedings
of the West Virginia Academy of Science,
54: 145-52 (1982, pub. 1983). 1.
First Amendment. 2. Academic Freedom. 3. Biology. 4. Earth Sciences and
Astronomy. 5. Physics. 6. Philosophy of Science; a possible test, suggested
by Frank Tipler, of the hypothesis that the Universe began in 4004 BC. 7.
History of Science.
http://pwvas.org/index.php/pwvas/issue/viewIssue/42/32 (Free) 186. Review of The
Age of the Earth by Slusher & Gamwell. In: Reviews
of Thirty-One Creationist Books, edited by S. Weinberg, pp. 53-54. Syosset, NY: National Center for Science Education, 1984. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
187. Inside the Earth. Natural
History, 93, no. 2: 26-34 (Feb.
1984). HMPP. Speculation
about the Earth’s core has varied over the centuries, but one theory, proposed
about 50 years ago, now seems to be correct (solid crust & mantle, liquid
outer core, solid inner core). 188. Review of Literature on the History of
Physics in the Twentieth Century by J.L. Heibron and B. R. Wheaton, et al.
Annals
of Science, 41: 101 (1984). https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033798400200131
(Sub) 189. Review of Springs of Scientific
Creativity edited by R. Aris et al. Annals
of Science, 41: 187-88 (1984). Annals
of Science, 41: 101 (1984). https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033798400200521
(Sub) Only
one author, C. W. F. Everitt in a 70-page study of J. C. Maxwell, seems to have
taken the title of the book seriously. Review
of Science under Scrutiny, edited by R. W. Home Annals
of Science 41: 605-606 (1984). https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033798400200421
(Sub) 190. The History of Geophysics and
Meteorology: An Annotated Bibliography (By SGB & H. E. Landsberg, with
the assistance of M. Collins). Garland
Publishing, Inc., New York, 1984. xvi + 450 pp. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
Introduction.
Biographies. Social and Institutional History; International Projects. Origin
and Development of the Earth; Planetary Cosmogony. Geochronology. Physics of
the Earth’‘s Interior. Geodesy, Terrestrial Gravitation, Size and Shape of the
Earth. Formation of the Earth’s Surface Features: Tectonics,
Uniformitarian-Catastrophist Debate, Plutonist-Neptunist Debate. Seismology.
Hydrology. Oceanography. Meterorology: General Histories, Institutions,
Observations, Phenomena. Atmospheric Physics. 191. Women in Physical Science: From Drudges to
Discoverers. The
Physics Teacher, 23: 11-19 (1985). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2341701
(Sub) Drudgery
vs. Discovery. The “Madame Curie” syndrome. Nobel Laureates: Marie Curie,
Dorothy Hodgkin, Irène Joliot-Curie, Maria Goeppert Mayer. Others who made
discoveries of equal importance: Inge Lehmann, Kathleen Lonsdale, Lise Meitner,
Emmy Noether, Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, Chien-Shiung Wu. Despite recent efforts
to recognize the contributions of women in science, very few textbooks say what
these 10 women actually discovered. 192. Irreversibility. The
Encyclopedia of Physics, third
edition, edited by R.M. Besancon, pp. 614-17. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1985. To order ebook from Springer, go to
Springer
To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page
To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
193. Kinetic Theory. Ibid, 634-38. The
Encyclopedia of Physics, third
edition, edited by R.M. Besancon, pp. 634-38. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1985. See previous item for ordering information 194. Physics in the Past: An original,
interesting View (XT) (review of From Falling Bodies to Radio Waves by
E. Segrè) Physics
Today, 38, no. 5: 83-84 (May 1985). https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2814564
(Sub) 195. Review of Science under Scrutiny: The
Place of History and Philosophy of Science, edited by R.W. Home. Annals of Science, 41: 605-606 (1984, pub. 1985). https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033798400200421
(Sub) 196. Federal Funding: Time for Action. History
of Science Society Newsletter, 14,
no. 2: 2-3 (April 1985).
https://hssonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Newsletter1985-April.pdf (Free) Will
HPS be GRHed? History
of Science Society Newsletter, 15,
no. 2: 6-7 (April 1986)
https://hssonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Newsletter1986-April.pdf (Free) 197. Review of Cosmology and Astrophysics:
Essays in Honor of Thomas Gold, edited by Yervant Terzian & Elizabeth
Bilson. Isis, 76: 418 (1985). 198. Review of Ludwig Boltzmann:
Man-Physicist-Philosopher by E. Broda. Technology
and Culture, 26: 659-61 (July 1985). 199. Review of James E. Keeler, Pioneer
American Astrophysicist and the Early Development of American Astrophysics,
by D.E. Osterbrock. Isis, 76: 646-647 (1985). 200. Skepticism: Another Alternative to Science
or Belief. In Science
and Creation: Geological, Theological, and Educational Perspectives, edited
by Robert W. Hanson, 160-73. Macmillan, New York, 1986. Skepticism
as a weapon used by Bishop Berkeley against Newton’s calculus; by A. Comte (see
item #180); by E. Mach and Logical Positivism against unobserved entities; by
Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend against evolution. The weapon often proves to
be double-edged. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
201. Review of Beyond Velikovsky, by H.H.
Bauer. American Studies, 27, no. 1: 143 (1986).
https://journals.ku.edu/amsj/article/view/2540/2499 (Free) 202. Early History of Selenogony In Origin
of the Moon, edited by W.K. Hartmann, R.J. Phillips, and G.J. Taylor,
3-15. Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX, 1986. HMPP Available free through SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1986ormo.conf....3B/abstract
Modern
theories of selenogony (the origin of the Moon) developed from general schemes
for the origin of the solar system and also from detailed analyses of the
“secular acceleration” of the Moon. After William Ferrel and C. E. Delaunay
had suggested that tidal forces slow the Earth’s rotation so that the Moon is
actually moving more slowly in her orbit, G. H. Darwin extrapolated the history
of the lunar orbit back to a time when the Moon was very close to the Earth.
He proposed in 1878 that fission of a previous proto-Earth had been triggered
by the Sun’s action in resonance with free oscillations. The hypothesis that
the Pacific Ocean basin is the scar left by the Moon’s departure from the Earth
was added by Osmond Fisher. Alternative selenogonies were proposed by Edouard
Roche (condensation from a circumterrestrial ring) and Thomas J. J. See
(capture after formation in the outer solar system). Darwin’s fission theory
was rejected following criticism by Harold Jeffreys in 1930. 203. Maxwell on Molecules and Gases,edited
by Elizabeth Garber, SGB& C. W. F. Everitt). The
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, xxvii + 565 pp. See
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/Maxwell_on_Molecules_and_Gases.html I.
Kinetic Theory and the Properties of Gases: Maxwell’s Work in Its 19th-Century
Context. II.
Documents on Atomic and Statistical Physics (drafts of articles and lectures,
correspondence with John Herapath, Simon Newcomb, Herbert Spencer, G. G. P. G.
Tait, William Thomson and others; reprints of published articles). III.
Documents on the Kinetic Theory of Gases (Correspondence with Lewis Campbell,
J. W. Strutt, P. G. Tait and others; drafts of article; reprints of published
articles) 204. Working Limits (XT) ( review of S. Carnot, Reflections
on the Motive Power of Fire, critical edition by R. Fox.) Times
Higher Education Supplement, 17
October 1986, p. 26. 205. Review of Order out of Chaos: Man's New
Dialogue with Nature by I. Prigogine and I. Stengers. British Journal for the History of Science
19: 371-72 (1986). https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400023657
(Sub) 206. The Age of the Earth. Science
Age (Bombay), 4, no. 8: 12-19
(November 1986). Scientists
fought religious interpretations to establish the antiquity of the Earth but
found they couldn’t agree amongst themselves, even as time-scales expanded from
thousands to billions of years. Cooling
Spheres and Accumulating Lead: The History of Attempts to Date the Earth’s
Formation. The
Science Teacher, 54, no. 9: 29-34
(December 1987). HMPP Theories
and experiments of Lord Kelvin, Ernest Rutherford, J. W. Strutt, Arthur Holmes,
Friedrich G. Houtermans , C. C. Patterson. 207. History and Geology as Ways of Studying the
Past. In Creativity
and the Imagination, edited by Mark Amsler, 105-33. University of Delaware Press, Newark, 1987. HMPP To order new through Rowman and Littlefield, go to
Rowman Page To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
Behavior
differences between physicists and historians. Comparison between two
historians (Leopold von Ranke, George Macaulay Trevelyan) who both wrote on the
English Revolution of the 17th century, and two geologists (Charles Lyell,
Archibald Geikie) who both wrote on the source of volcanic energy. These
examples suggest that the difference between historians and geologists is that
the latter are constantly interacting with each other whereas the former seem
to work in isolation. 208. Whole Earth History (essay review of The
Abyss of Time by C. C. Albritton; It Began with a Stone by H. &
C. Faul; The Dark Abyss of Time by P. Rossi; The Dark Side of the
Earth by R. M. Wood) Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 17: 345-55 (1987). (Full text
available on this website) Also
JSTOR Although
all 4 books fall short of providing a satisfactory account of the history of
Earth science, each in its own way represents historiographical progress. 209. Review of Hypatia's Heritage: A
History of Women in Science from Antiquity to the late Nineteenth Century,
by M. Alic. Historical
Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 17: 369 (1987). 210. Resource Letter HP-1, History of Physics.
American Journal of Physics, 55: 683-91
(1987). Reprinted in #216. https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.15057
(Sub) Emphasis
is on works covering broad topics and historical periods, and on recent
reference works that facilitate retrieval of more specialized information. 211. History of Science
and Science Education. Scientific
Literacy Papers: A Journal of Research in Science, Education and the Public (Oxford), 75-87 (Summer 1987). Reprinted in Teaching
the History of Science, edited by M. Shortland and A. Warwick, 54-66. The
British Society for the History of Science/Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1989.
Reprinted in Interchange, A Quarterly Review of Education (Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto), 20, no. 2: 60-70 (1989). Interchange version available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01807048
(Sub) A
review of what history of science has to offer science education, and how it
has already been used in a successful science curriculum project (The Project
Physics Course). Science deals with interesting broad philosophical questions
(determinism, realism) that are often ignored in textbooks; these questions are
best discussed in their historical setting. Traditional science teaching
stresses the discovery of objective facts at the expense of the creation of new
concepts; the historical approach redresses the balance. (Examples: Copernican
astronomy, IQ test). Contributions of women and minorities become more than
just names listed at the front of the textbook, when their work is shown to
have been important to the mainstream of science. Research by G. S.
Aikenhead, D. J. Quattropani and others has suggested that students in the
Project Physics Course gain a better understanding of how science works (going
beyond the “scientific method” approach), and how it is related to society. 212. The Nebular
Hypothesis and the Evolutionary Worldview. History
of Science, 25: 245-78 (1987) HMPP. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/007327538702500302(Sub) Available free through SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1987HisSc..25..245B/abstract
I.
From Newton to Darwin? II. The Evolutionary Worldview (EW). III. The
Cosmogonies of Laplace and William Herschel. IV. Minimum Age of the Universe.
V. Christening of the Nebular Hypothesis (NH). VI. General Implications of
the NH. VII. Cooling, Progress, and Decay. VIII. Scientific Objections to Darwin’s Theory. IX. Conclusions: The NH did promote the EW in general and theories of
organic evolution in particular, but in a context that made it difficult for scientists
to accept most of those theories. Contrary to the usual view that Darwinism
was consonant with other movements of thought in the 19th century, Darwin’s
theory was not consistent with the EW; that worldview was limited (to
unidirectional change, mechanistic causation, etc.) in ways that his theory was
not. 213. Review of The
Probabilistic Revolution, edited by L. Krüger et al. Physics
Today, 41, no. 4: 87-88. (April
1988) https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2811391(Sub) 214. Review of Cosmic
Debris: Meteorites in History by John G. Burke. American Historical Review, 93: 665 (1988).
https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/93.3.665 (Sub) Also
JSTOR 215. The History of
Modern Science: A Guide to the Second Scientific Revolution, 1800-1950. Iowa
State University Press, Ames, 1988, xv + 544 pp. See
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/The_History_of_Modern_Science.html Each
chapter has synopses, recommended readings for students, and bibliographies of
sources for instructors. 1. Introduction. 2. Evolution. 3. Evolution of
Races and Cultures. 4. Gender and Genetics. 5. Freud and Psychoanalysis. 6.
Behavior and Intelligence. 7. Atoms, Energy, and Statistics. 8.
Electromagnetism and Relativity. 9. Atomic Structure. 10. The Explosion of
Physics. 11. Philosophical and Social Perspectives. 12. Astronomy in the
19th Century. 13. Astronomy in the 20th century. Book list. 216. History of
Physics: Selected Reprints (editor) American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 1988, 235 pp. See
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/History_of_Physics_Selected%20Reprints.html Resource
Letter by SGB (item #210). Reprints of articles: I. Mechanics (by W. A.
Wallace, S. Drake, I. B. Cohen); II. Optics, Electricity, and Magnetism (by F.
A. J. L. James, R. C. Stauffer, M. N. Wise). III. Heat, Kinetic Theory,
Properties of Matter (by D. B. Wilson). IV. Quantum Theory (by M. J. Klein, T.
S. Kuhn, L. Wessels). V. Nuclear and Particle Physics (by M. Malley).
Relativity (by G. Holton, A. I. Miller) 217. Gaseous Heat
Conduction and Radiation in 19th Century Physics. History
of Heat Transfer: Essays in Honor of the 50th Anniversary of the ASME Heat
Transfer Division, edited by Edwin T.
Layton, Jr. and John H. Leinhard, 25-51. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York, 1988. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options, and to see a snippet view of the book, go to
Google Books
Based
on item #94. 218. A History of Modern
Selenogony: Theoretical Origins of the Moon, from Capture to Crash 1955- 1984. Space
Science Reviews, 47: 211-273 (1988).
HMPP Available free through SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1988SSRv...47..211B/abstract
The
development of ideas about the origin of the Moon during the last decade is
reviewed. In the 1950s, G. H. Darwin’s fission theory was still occasionally
mentioned but by the 1960s it had been displaced by the hypothesis of lunar
capture. A few scientists favored formation of the Moon from particles in
orbit around the growing Earth. Analysis of samples from the Apollo missions
did not confirm any of the 3 theories of lunar origin. Eventually the giant
impact theory, proposed by W. K. Hartmann & D. R. Davis (1974) and by A. G.
W. Cameron & W. R. Ward (1975), was adopted. But the problem is not yet
satisfactorily solved and work continues on other hypotheses such as
co-accretion. 219. Review of The Newton Handbook by Derek Gjertsen. Teaching
Philosophy, 11: 172-73 (1988). https://dx.doi.org/10.5840/teachphil198811245(Sub) 220. Geomagnetic Secular
Variation and Theories of the Earth's Interior (By SGB & S. K. Banerjee).
In Past,
Present and Future Trends in Geophysical Research, edited by W. Schröder,
65-96. Interdivisional
Commission on History of the International Association of Geomagnetism and
Aeronomy, Bremen-Roennebeck, Germany, 1988. HMPP To see a snippet view of the book, go to
Google Books
During
the last 300 years scientists interested in terrestrial magnetism have regarded
geomagnetic secular variation (GSV) as an important clue to the origin of the
Earth’s magnetic field and have proposed several models of the Earth’s interior
to account for it. But before the 1940s, when W. Elsasser and E. C. Bullard
developed a successful dynamo theory, these models were not closely related to
theories developed by geophysicists on the basis of seismological and other
evidence. In the 1960s, efforts were made by R. Hide and others to infer fluid
motions from GSV data. In the 1970s, GSV unexpectedly acquired religious
significance when a creationist, T. Barnes, used an obsolete dipole model, ignoring
the evidence for field reversals, to conclude that the Earth was created less
than 10,000 years ago (for critique of this calculation see item #166). 221. The
Creationism-Abortion Connection. Creation-Evolution
Newsletter, vol. 8, no. 5: 7-8 (September/October
1988). A
telephone survey of 3310 adults in the Washington DC area by Scarborough
Research Corp. shows a strong correlation between anti-abortion and
pro-creationist views. 222. Review of On the Continuity of the
Gaseous and Liquid States by J. D. van der Waals, new edition by J. S.
Rowlinson. Journal
of Statistical Physics, 53: 1337-39
(1988). 223. History of the Physical Sciences (revised
and expanded version of article written for earlier edition by M. Osler &
J. B. Spencer) The
New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 25:
833-45 (1989); 15th edition (reprinted 2005), pp. 828-840.. Online version available free from Britannica website: https://www.britannica.com/science/physical-science 224. The Age of the Earth in the 20th Century. Earth
Sciences History, 8: 170-82 (1989).
HMPP https://dx.doi.org/10.17704/eshi.8.2.l555205161r6pvu3(Sub) At
the end of the 19th century, Lord Kelvin’s upper limit of only 20 or 30 million
years (m.y.) for the age of the Earth was challenged by the American geologist
T. C. Chamberlin, who showed that Kelvin’s model of an Earth gradually cooling
from an initial molten state was not the only possible one. Kelvin’s limit was
soon afterwards repealed by the new science of radioactivity, which yielded
ages of a few thousand million years. While some geologists resisted this
expanded time-scale, Chamblerin was the only one who could provide a
comprehensive cosmogonical theory that did not submit to the epistemological
superiority of physics and astronomy. In
the 1940s, as radiometric age determinations improved in accuracy, they came
into conflict with the expanding-universe cosmology -- a conflict that the
cosmologists eventually avoided by expanding their distance and time scales
(see item #291). In 1953, C. C. Patterson announced the result 4500 million
years, which is still accepted as the best estimate for the age of the Earth.
But geologists, liberated from Kelvin’s limit, define the Earth’s formation as
being outside the scope of their science, and their textbooks rarely give
credit to the person who established the number that once seemed so important
to accounts of the Earth’s history. 225. Prediction and
Theory Evaluation: The Case of Light Bending. Science, 246: 1124-29 (1989). https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.246.4934.1124(Sub) Is
a theory that makes successful predictions of new facts better than one that
does not? Does a fact provide better evidence for a theory if it was not known
before being deduced from the theory? These questions can be answered by
analyzing historical cases. Einstein’s successful prediction of gravitational
light bending from his general theory of relativity has been presented as an
important example of how “real” science works (in contrast to alleged
pseudosciences like psychoanalysis). But, while this success gained favorable
publicity for the theory, most scientists did not give it any more weight than
the deduction of the advance of Mercury’s perihelion (a phenomenon known for
several decades). The fact that scientists often use the word “prediction” to
describe the deduction of such previously-known facts suggests that novelty may
be of little importance in evaluating theories. It may even detract from the
evidential value of a fact, until it is clear that competing theories cannot
account for the new fact. Prediction
and the Evaluation of Theories by Scientists. Presented at American Physical
Society meeting, Baltimore. 2 May 1989, Symposium of the Division of History of
Physics: How Theories are accepted. Abstract published in meeting program. 226. Radioactivity and the Nucleus; Atomic
Chemistry; Relativity; Quantum Mechanics; The Age of the Earth; Continental
Drift; Nuclear Physics; Nuclear Fission and Nuclear Fusion; Scientists Unite! In Album
of Science: The Physical Sciences in the Twentieth Century, by Owen
Gingerich et al. , pp. 3-4, 13-14, 23-24, 33-34, 83-84, 101-2, 123-24,
133-34, 259-60. Scribner, New York, 1989. To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
227. History of Science
in NEH Summer Seminars (by Stephen M. Ross & SGB). History
of Science Society Newsletter, 18,
no. 5: 1, 9-11 (Oct. 1989).
https://hssonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Newsletter1989-October.pdf (Free) 228. Review of Theory
of Earth Science by W. von Engelhardt and J. Zimmerman. Physics
of the Earth and Planetary Interiors,
58: 270-71 (1989). 229. Letter from the
President. History
of Science Society Newsletter, 19,
no. 1: 1, 8-10 (Jan. 1990).
https://hssonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Newsletter1990-January.pdf (Free) Summary
of current governance system of HSS, publications, finances, honors and prizes,
educational activities, Visiting Historians of Science program, audience, women
and minority historians of science, independent scholars. 230. Theories of the
Origin of the Solar System, 1956-1985. Reviews
of Modern Physics, 62: 43-112
(1990). HMPP https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.62.43
(Sub) Attempts
to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the Solar System
began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful. The
period 1956-85 includes the first phase of intensive space research; new
results from lunar and planetary exploration might be expected to have played a
major role in the development of ideas about lunar and planetary formation.
While this is indeed the case for theories of the origin of the Moon
(selenogony), it was not true for the solar system in general, where
ground-based observations (including meteorite studies) were frequently more
decisive (G. J. Wasserburg et al.). During this period most theorists (F.
Hoyle, A. G. W. Cameron, V. Safronov, H. C. Urey, H. Alfvén) accepted a
monistic scenario: the collapse of a gas-dust cloud to form the Sun with
surrounding disk, and condensation of that disk to form planets, were seen as
part of a single process. Theorists differed on how to explain the
distribution of angular momentum between Sun and planets, on whether planets
formed directly by condensation of gaseous protoplanets (G. Kuiper) or by
accretion of solid planetesimals (Safronov, G. W. Wetherill), on whether the
“solar nebula” was ever hot and turbulent enough to vaporize and completely mix
its components (E. Anders, H. Suess, J. Lewis, K. K. Turekian, S. P. Clark) and
on whether an external cause such as a supernova explosion “triggered” the
initial collapse of the cloud (Cameron). Only in selenogony was a tentative
consensus reached on a single working hypothesis with quantitative results (see
#218). 231. Prediction and
Theory Evaluation: Alfvén on Space Plasma Phenomena. Eos
(Transactions of the American Geophysical Union) 71: 19-33 (1990). (See also #243)
https://dx.doi.org/10.1029/EO063i047p01185(Sub) According
to some scientists and philosophers of science, a theory is or should be judged
by its ability to make successful predictions. This paper examines a case from
the history of recent science -- the research of Hannes Alfvén and his
colleagues on space plasma phenomena -- in order to see whether scientists
actually follow this policy. Tests of five predictions are considered:
magnetohydrodynamic waves, field-aligned (“Birkeland”) currents, critical
ionization velocity and the existence of planetary rings, electrostatic double
layers, and partial corotation. It is found that the success or failure of
these predictions had essentially no effect on the acceptance of Alfvén’s
theories, even though concepts such as “Alfvén waves” have become firmly entrenched
in space physics. Perhaps the importance of predictions in science has been
exaggerated; if a theory is not acceptable to the scientific community, it may
not gain any credit from successful predictions. 232. The Most-Cited
Physical Sciences Publications in the 1945-1954 Science Citation Index. Current
Contents, no. 20: 7-17 (May 14,
1990); no. 42: 8-13 (October 15, 1990); no. 43: 7-16 (October 22, 1990). Available free from Eugene Garfield's website with different pagination:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3 The
article discusses major trends, achievements, and researchers in the physical
science in this period. Part 1: Physics & Chemistry; Part 2: Mathematics;
Part 3, Astronomy & Earth Sciences. Comparisons are made between citation
frequency and other measures of importance, such as Nobel Prizes and judgments
by historians of science. 48% of the most-cited physics papers and 40% of the
most-cited chemistry papers were authored or co-authored by a Nobel Laureate,
although these publications were not necessarily the work for which they
receive the Nobel Prize. In Mathematics, none of the winners of the Fields
Medal appear as authors of the 20 most-cited mathematics articles. Most of the
papers that were later judged to contain outstanding discoveries were not
highly cited by contemporaries. For astronomy, where there are no comparable
prizes, one can compare the list with anthologies of important papers. The
real value of a list of highly cited publications is that it focuses attention
on papers that are highly valued by specialists and clearly have played an
important role in the development of a field even if not recognized by prizes
and general surveys. 233. Ludwig Boltzmann and the Foundations of
Natural Science. In Ludwig Boltzmann Principien der Naturfilosofi, Lectures
on Natural Philosophy 1903-1906, edited by I. M. Fasol-Boltzmann, 43-61. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990. (Revised version of #51) To order new, go to
Springer To see more ordering options, and see a snippet view of the book, go to
Google Books
234. Kelvin in His Times (XT) (Review of Energy
and Empire, A Biographical Study of Lord Kelvin by Crosbie Smith and M.
Norton Wise) Science 248: 875-77 (1990).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.248.4957.875(Sub) Also
JSTOR 235. Letter from the
President. History
of Science Society Newsletter, 20,
no. 1: 1, 6-8 (Jan.1991).
https://hssonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Newsletter1991-January.pdf (Free) Transfer
of Isis and Osiris to University of Chicago Press, expansion of
eligibility for Pfizer Award, dues increase, new Forum on History of Human
Science, place in structure of National Science Foundation, cooperation with
other societies, grants, new Treasurer, committee chairs. 236. Review of A
Companion to the Physical Sciences by David Knight. Isis, 81: 744 (1990). 237. Physics by Post (review of The
Correspondence between Sir George Gabriel Stokes and Sir William Thomson, Baron
Kelvin of Largs, edited by David B. Wilson). Nature, 349:575 (1991).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/349575a0 (Sub) 238. Women in Science
and Engineering.
American Scientist, 79: 404-19 (1991). Women
are still seriously underrepresented in the sciences, especially physics, and
they have made comparatively little progress in the past 5 years. Why?
Obstacles include: negative cultural stereotypes of scientists in U.S.;
textbook portrayals of scientists & engineers; publicity about “mental inferiority”
of females in 1970s & 1980s (based on now-outdated research); inadequate
preparation in high school; demonstrated anti-female bias of the SAT, which
underpredicts college grades of women; cutbacks in financial aid for college
students; coeducation; inappropriate teaching methods ; combative interactions
among scientists; the glass ceiling; tenure system in universities. Also, the
young women who “leak out of the science & engineering pipeline” (an
offensive metaphor) may be behaving more intelligently than those who want to
recruit them but refuse to provide adequate incentives, such as reasonable
working conditions and promotion opportunities. There are still good reasons
why the most qualified & motivated women should try to go into science
& engineering, despite the radical feminist argument that Western science
is essentially anti-female and must change before women can comfortably
participate in it; the culture of science is unlikely to change if women stay
out of science. (See also #255) Arguing
about Androgyny (XT) (Letters to Editor) Ibid. 80: 6-7 (1992) (In
response to a letter-writer who is “completely unconvinced that there can be
any sexual discrimination with respect to the mathematical section of the SAT.
Mathematics is genderless”) Mathematics may be genderless, but SAT word
problems sometimes involve situations more familiar to one sex than the other.
This can be important in a timed test. A notorious example involving won-lost
percentages of a basketball team did produce a significant male-female
difference. 239. Should Scientists Write History of Science? Conference
on Critical Problems and Research Frontiers in History of Science and History
of Technology, 30 October -- 3 November 1991, Madison, Wisconsin, 67-91. History of Science Society. See
item #258. 240. Review of The Collected Papers of Albert
Einstein, edited by J. Stachel et al.,Vol. 2.
American Scientist, 79: 571 (1991). 241. How Cosmology Became a Science. (XT) Scientific American
, 267, no. 2: 62-70 (Aug.
1992).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-cosmology-became-a-science/
(Sub) The
discovery of the cosmic microwave background in the 1960s established the Big
Bang theory and made cosmology into an empirical science. (See #245 for
details and references.) 242. Review of The Age of the Earth by G.
B. Dalrymple. Isis, 83: 518
(1992). 243. Alfvén's Programme in Solar System Physics. IEEE
Transactions on Plasma Science, 20:
577-589 (1992). Reprinted
in Historical Case Studies in Physics and Geophysics, edited by W. Schröder, 146-58. Bremen-Rönnebeck/Potsdam: Science Edition, 2001. HMPP IEEE Xplore (Sub) Expanded
version of item #231. Two additional predictions, used in theories of the
origin of the Solar System, are magnetic braking and jet streams. 244. Introduction (by SGB, Paul Theerman and
Adele F. Seeff]. In Action
and Reaction: Proceedings of a Symposium to Commemorate the Tercentenary of
Newton's Principia, edited by Paul Theerman and Adele F. Seeff, pp. 11-27.
University of Delaware Press, Newark; Associated University Presses, London & Toronto, 1993. To order new, go to
University of Delaware Press To see more ordering options and a preview of the entire Introduction, go to
Google Books
On
the history of Newtonian anniversary celebrations; changes in Newton
historiography reflected in publications circa 1837, 1887, 1937, 1942, 1966,
1987. 245. Prediction and Theory Evaluation: Cosmic
Microwaves and the Revival of the Big Bang. Perspectives
on Science, 1: 565-602 (1993). Are
theories judged on the basis of empirical tests of their predictions, as
proposed by Karl Popper and others, or are new theories adopted by younger
scientists while old theories fade away when their advocates die, as Max Planck
suggested? The rejection of Steady State cosmology (SS) and the revival of the
Big Bang cosmology (BB) following the 1965 discovery of the cosmic microwave
background radiation offers one answer. By 1975 almost all supporters of SS
had either switched to BB or stopped publishing on cosmology. This case seems
to exemplify Popper’s principle, although 2 of the 3 founders of SS (H. Bondi,
T. Gold) had explicitly endorsed that principle and thus had to follow it,
while the 3rd (F. Hoyle) had not and did not. The case does not support the
Popperian claim that successful novel (“in advance”) predictions provide
better evidence for a theory than deductions of known facts (“retrodictions”). 246. Prediction and Theory Evaluation: Subatomic
Particles. Rivista
di Storia della Scienza, serie II,
Vol. 1, no. 2: 47-152 (December 1993). (Full
text available on this website) Does
successful prediction of a new phenomenon encourage the acceptance of the
theory that led to the prediction? This paper surveys the response of
physicists to 3 theories that predicted previously-unknown particles: P. A. M.
Dirac’s relativistic quantum theory (positron); H.Yukawa’s theory of nuclear
forces (meson); M. Gell-Mann’s SU(3) symmetry-group theory (omega-minus, S-). The
balance between this empirical evidence and other arguments used to evaluate
the theories is discussed. In all 3 cases the discovery of the predicted
particle had a major impact on theoretical and experimental research. Popper’s
thesis is supported only in the minimalist sense that “corroboration” of a
theory makes it more reasonable to pursue it, but does not support the claim
that novelty increases the evidential value of a prediction. The case of
the positron shows that theoretical objections to a hypothesis can prevent its
full acceptance despite the strongest empirical support (cf. #231). It is
remarkable that Dirac’s theory was replaced by another theory (the quantum
electrodynamics of Feynman, Schwinger & Tomonaga) which did not claim to predict
antiparticles as Dirac’s theory did, but simply postulated their existence. 247. Physics History: The German Atomic Bomb;
Recent Publications on the History of Physics. In Physics
News in 1993, edited by P. F. Schewe, 38-39. American Institute of Physics, New York, 1994. 248. Geophysics. In Companion
Encyclopedia of the History and Philosophy of the Mathematical Sciences,
edited by I. Grattan-Guinness, 1183-88. Routledge, London & New York, 1994. To order used through Amazon.com, and see an Amazon book preview, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options and a Google book preview, go to
Google Books
Statistical Mechanics. Ibid.,
1242-1251. 249. A Grand Designer
(XT) (Letter to Editor) Technology
Review, 97, no 5: 8 (July 1994).
https://www.technologyreview.com/magazines/mit-technology-review-july-1994/ (Sub) Comment
on K. Miller’s critique of “intelligent design” creationism in February/March
issue. 250. Review of Inventory of Sources for
History of Twentieth-Century Physics by B. R. Wheaton , R.E. Rider. Isis, 85: 671-72 (1994). 251. Recent Publications on the History of
Physics (by SGB & staff of the Niels Bohr Library) A
Supplement to the Newsletters of The AIP Center for History of Physics and The
Forum for History of Physics, American Physical Society, Fall 1994. 12 pp.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060623143420/https://www.aip.org/history/newsletter/fall94/books94.htm
252. Popper and
Evolution National Center
for Science Education Reports, 13 no.
4 & 14 no. 1: 29 (Winter 1993/Spring 1994) https://ncse.ngo/popper-and-evolution
Popper
once claimed that Darwinian evolutionary theory is not a scientific theory but
only a metaphysical research programme, because it is not falsifiable: it can’t
predict what will evolve in the future. That criterion would exclude not just
evolutionary biology but also historical geology and much of astronomy. He
reversed himself in 1978 and asserted that Darwinian theory is
scientific but creationists ignore the reversal and still quote the original
statement. 253. Review of Creating
Modern Probability by J. Von Plato. Journal
of Statistical Physics 77: 1105-7
(1994). 254. Are the Soft Sciences too Hard? Contention, 4, no. 2: 3-12 (Winter 1995) Social
(“soft”) scientists are criticized because their methods are imprecise and
their conclusions unreliable, supposedly because they don’t follow the
“scientific method” of the (“hard”) physical scientists. Some have tried to
meet this criticism by adopting Popper’s “falsifiability” criterion. Theories
of revolutions have been expected not only to explain past revolutions but
predict future upheavals. This is a more stringent criterion than physicists
themselves use. An atomic theory is not expected to predict both the position
and the velocity of a single particle (impossible, according to Heisenberg’s
Principle); a theory of macroscopic phenomena (e.g., meteorology) cannot make
such predictions even if quantum effects are unimportant (according to chaos
theory). Yet statistical predictions are considered both sufficient and
useful in physics. Moreover, predictions “in advance” are not always more
valuable than explanations of past events. So social scientists may be
unnecessarily holding themselves to a higher standard than physical scientists. 255. Women, Science, and Universities. In Women's
Contributions to Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, A Historical and Current
Perspective of Women at the Forefront, edited by Judit E. Puskas, pp.
2-25. (Proceedings of a Symposium at the Annual Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Anaheim, CA, Spring 1995). Also
published in Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 15, no. 4:
205-14 (1995).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/027046769501500457 (Sub) Update
of item #238. Recent reports present a mixed and confusing picture. More
women are earning doctorates in science, but it’s not clear that more are getting
good jobs and research support. The promised national demand for more
scientists in the 1990s did not materialize, and the perception that employers
favor women is not supported by facts. But we still need to increase the
proportion of women in science, not as “affirmative action” but because it
would benefit everyone. The ability of women to make major discoveries has
already been proved, though current textbooks fail to show that. Universities
must change practices that obstruct women’s pursuit of careers in science:
criteria for admissions and scholarship awards, teaching methods, promotion and
tenure procedures, attitudes toward family needs, salary differentials. It
would make more sense to shift the emphasis away from persuading young girls to
choose scientific careers, toward ensuring that those women who have already
made that choice are enabled to go as far as their abilities and motivations
can take them. 256. At Home on the Cusps of Controversy; Hoyle
on Hoyle’s Life and Time (XT) (Review of Home is Where the Wind Blows:
Chapters from a Cosmologist's Life by Fred Hoyle.) Physics
Today, 48, no. 2: 53-54 (Feb. 1995).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2807912 (Sub) 257. The Origin of the Solar System: Soviet
Research 1925-1991 (by Aleksey E. Levin & SGB) AIP
Press, New York, 1995, xiii + 415 pp. See
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/The_Origin_of_the_Solar_System.html I.
Introduction: A.E.L, The Otto Schmidt School and the Development of Planetary
Cosmogony in the USSR; SGB, Planetary Cosmogony in the West and Safronov’s
Theory. II. Selected Writings of Otto Schmidt, 1925-54. III. The
Protoplanetary Cloud: General Theories of Planet Formation. IV. Rotation of
Planets. V. Formation of the Earth and other Terrestrial Planets. VI.
Origin of the Moon and other Planetary Satellites. VII. Formation of the
Giant Planets. VIII. Asteroids, Comets, and Meteorites. IX. Other Planetary
Systems. Bibliography. 258. Scientists as Historians. Osiris [series 2], 10: 215-31 (1995). Revision of item
#239. Scientists
should write history of science if they are willing to acquire the skills and background
knowledge of the historian of science; nonscientist historians should write
history of science if they are willing to learn enough science to understand
what they are going to write about. Both should be familiar with current
historiographic debates (whiggism or presentism vs. priggism, contextualism vs.
postmodernism, history of science vs. history of scientists, discovery vs.
construction) but need not follow a single approach. Many major contributors
to history of physics hold a doctorate in physics. 259. Prediction and Theory Evaluation in Physics
and Astronomy. In No
Truth Except in the Details, edited by A. J. Kox & D. M. Siegel, pp.
299-318. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995. To order the article electronically, go to
SpringerLink To order used through Amazon.com and see a preview of the book, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options and see a preview of the book, go to
Google Books
Summary
of results from items #172, 225, 231, 245, 246. Confirmation of a prediction,
whether novel or not, is only one factor governing the response to a theory.
Theoretical objections to a hypothesis can prevent its full acceptance despite
the strongest empirical support. Conversely, refutation of a prediction may
lead an individual scientist to abandon a theory, but in general the scientific
community bases its rejection on more than a single falsification. X-rays
and the Birth of Modern Physics. Presented
in session “One Hundred Years of X-Rays,” June 6. 1995, at 32nd
Annual Meeting, Clay Minerals Society, June 3-8, 1995 in Baltimore, MD. Abstract in Program of Meeting It
is often said that Roentgen’s 1895 discovery was the beginning of the revolution
that led to the establishment of quantum mechanics, relativity, and
atomic/nuclear physics in the first part of the 20th century.
Drawing on recent studies by historians of physics, I will describe the state
of physics in the 1890s, the early debates about the nature of X-rays, the
birth of quantum theory, and the role of X-ray research in the new
understanding of electromagnetic radiation in general, culminating in the
discovery and interpretation of the Compton effect. See
item 319. 260. Maxwell on Heat and Statistical
Mechanics: On “Avoiding all Personal Inquiries” of Molecules (XT) (edited
by Elizabeth Garber, SGB & C. W. F . Everitt). Lehigh University Press, Bethlehem, PA, 1995, 550 pp. See
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/Maxwell_on_Heat_and_Statistical_Mechanics.html I.
Introduction. II. Documents from Kinetic Theory to Thermodynamics
(correspondence with Francis Guthrie, G. G. Stokes, P. G. Tait, William
Thomson; drafts and paper on final state of system subject to forces; review of
book by H. W. Watson). III. Documents on Thermodynamics (correspondence with
P. G. Tait and William Thomson on demons, etc.; with Thomas Andrews and James Thomson,
on experiments; correspondence with Mark Pattison, C. J. Munro, G. G. Stokes,
R. J E. Clausius; drafts). IV. Documents on the Virial Theorem & Equation
of State (letters to P. G. Tait, report on Andrews paper, drafts). V.
Documents on Statistical Mechanics (drafts). VI. Documents on the Radiometer
& Rarified Gas Dynamics (correspondence with Robert Cay, William Huggins,
Osborne Reynolds, G. G. Stokes, P. G. Tait, William Thomson; reports on papers
by William Crookes, Reynolds, Arthur Schuster, and Thomson’s report on
Maxwell’s paper; drafts). A Maxwell Bibliography (Published works and
secondary sources). Chronological Index to Maxwell Correspondence (covering
items #182, 203 & 260). 261. Feynman's Success: Demystifying Quantum
Mechanics (XT). (Review of The Beat of a Different Drum: The Life and
Science of Richard Feynman by J. Mehra.)
American Scientist, 83: 476-477 (1995). Following
Alexander Pope-- Nature
and nature’s laws lay hid in night God
said, “Let Newton be!” and all was light and
John Collings Squire-- It did not last: the Devil howling “Ho! Let
Einstein be!” restored the status
quo. We
could add (SGB), God
rolled His dice, to Einstein’s great dismay: “Let
Feynman be!” and all was clear as day. 262. Geophysics (by SGB & C. S. Gillmor). In Twentieth
Century Physics, edited by L. M. Brown et al., pp. 1943-2016 (SGB is
author of pp. 1944-81). Institute of Physics (UK) and American Institute of Physics, 1995. To order used through Amazon.com and see a preview of the book, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options and see a preview of the book, go to
Google Books
Origin
and Age of the Earth (to 1935). The Earth’s Core and Geomagnetism. Origin and
Age of the Earth (after 1935). The ‘Revolution in the Earth Sciences’. 263. Dynamics of Theory Change: The Role of
Predictions. In PSA
1994, Proceedings of the 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science
Association, edited by David Hull et al., vol. 2, pp. 133-45.
Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, MI, 1995. 1.
Introduction. 2. Novel Predictions in the Philosophy of Science. (Lakatos
methodology; Bayesian analysis; miracle argument for realism). 3. Does Novelty
Make a Difference? 4. Evidence from Case Histories (results from items #225,
231, 245, 246, 270; reception of Quantum Mechanics). 5. Are Theorists less
Trustworthy than Observers? 6. Conclusions. 264. Recent Publications on the History of
Physics (by SGB and the staff of the Niels Bohr Library). A
Supplement to the Newsletters of The AIP Center for History of Physics and The
Forum for History of Physics, American Physical Society, Fall 1995. 16 pp.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060623142535/https://www.aip.org/history/newsletter/fall95/biblio.htm
265. A History of Modern Planetary Physics.
Volume 1: Nebulous Earth: The Origin of the Solar System and the Core of
the Earth from Laplace to Jeffreys. xii + 312 pp. Volume 2: Transmuted
Past: The Age of the Earth and the Evolution of the Elements from Lyell to
Patterson. x + 134 pp. Volume 3: Fruitful Encounters: The Origin of the
Solar System and of the Moon from Chamberlin to Apollo. xii + 354 pp. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1996. See
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/Nebulous_Earth.html
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/Transmuted_Past.html
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/Fruitful_Encounters.html Based
on items #33, 126, 134, 142, 143, 148, 152, 156, 172, 187, 202, 206, 207, 212,
218, 220, 224, 230, 243 with new chapters on Stellar Evolution and the Origin
of the Elements. 266. Recent Publications on the History of
Physics (by SGB & the staff of the Niels Bohr Library). A
Supplement to the Newsletters of The AIP Center for History of Physics and The
Forum for History of Physics, American Physical Society, Fall 1996. 16 pp.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060613011348/https://aip.org/history/newsletter/fall96/books96.htm
267. Directory of Historians of Physics,
compiled by SGB. and Martha E. Keyes. Committee
on the History and Philosophy of Science, University of Maryland, College Park , Maryland, 1996. 30 pp. Last Updated- January 11, 1999 Taken down from live web; last capture on Internet Archive July 4, 2008 268. Solar System Astronomy before Sputnik
(XT) (Review of Solar System Astronomy in America by R. E. Doel). Journal for the History of Astronomy, vol. 27: 368-70 (1996).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002182869602700408 (Sub) 269. Dynamics of Theory Change in the Social
Sciences: Relative Deprivation and Collective Violence. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 40: 523-45 (1996).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022002796040004001(Sub) Also
JSTOR The
extent to which theories in the social sciences are accepted or rejected on the
basis of empirical tests can be shown only by a detailed analysis of specific
cases. The author examines the reception by social scientists in the 1970s and
early 1980s of T. R. Gurr’s theory of collective violence based on the concept
of relative deprivation. The history of this theory may be considered an
example of definite progress in social science: a hypothesis widely accepted at
one time has been tested and rejected, thus making room for the development of
alternative hypotheses. But
although Gurr and other advocates of the theory abandoned it in its original
form following the mostly negative results of empirical tests, others continued
to cite it favorably. Slightly less than half of the unfavorable views have
been supported by empirical evidence. 270. The Reception of Mendeleev's Periodic Law in
America and Britain. Isis, 87: 595-628 (1996). Mendeleev’s
Periodic Law attracted little attention until chemists started to discover some
of the elements needed to fill gaps in his table and found that their
properties were remarkably similar to those he had predicted. The Law was
mentioned much more often in journals after the discovery of gallium; probably
because of Mendeleev’s prediction of the properties of the new element (though
it is difficult to prove a causal relation). By the late 1880s, most textbooks
discussed the Law to some extent. Reasons for accepting it are: (1) it
accurately describes the correlation between physicochemical properties and
atomic weights of nearly all known elements; (2) it has led to useful
corrections in the atomic weights of several elements and resolves controversies
about some of them (e.g. Be); (3) successful predictions of the existence and
properties of new elements. As in other cases (items #225, 231, 245, 246) the
new theory was expected to do much more than foretell an exotic new phenomenon
or substance; it had to prove its value by better organizing and explaining
known facts. But here, unlike in other cases, novelty was accorded a
significant (though not dominant) role in weighing the evidence for the
theory. Perhaps chemists are more Popperian than physicists. 271. Seeing is Believing (XT) (review of The
Biological Universe: The Twentieth-Century Extraterrestrial Life Debate and the
Limits of Science by S. J. Dick). Nature, 385: 592-94 (1997).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/385592b0 (Sub) 272. Still in the Shadows? (XT) (Power, Townley
& the gas law) ShiPS
Teachers' Network News,vol.7, no.2: 8
(March 1997). 273. Recent Publications on the History of
Physics (by SGB & the staff of the Niels Bohr Library). A
supplement to the Newsletter of the AIP Center for the History of Physics, College Park, MD, Fall 1997. 18 pp.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060623143502/https://www.aip.org/history/newsletter/fall97/books97.htm
274. Review of Van der Waals and Molecular
Science by A. Ya. Kipnis, B. E. Yavelov and J. S. Rowlinson. (By J. M. H.
Levelt Sengers & SGB). Journal
of Statistical Physics, 89:
1099-1103 (1997). 275. Unraveling Complex Events (XT). (Review of Physics
in the Nineteenth Century by R. D. Purrington) Science, 279: 998 (1998).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5353.998(Sub) Also
JSTOR 276. Review of Cosmology and Controversy
by H. Kragh. Centaurus, 40: 373-75 (1998). 277. Quantifying Singularities (Review of The
Critical Point by C. Domb) Notes
and Records of the Royal Society of London, 52: 198-200 (1998) https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.1998.0044 (Sub) 278. Recent Publications on the History of
Physics (by Per F. Dahl, SGB & the staff of the Niels Bohr Library) A
supplement to the Newsletter of The Center for History of Physics/Niels Bohr
Library, Fall 1998, pp. 63-77. College Park, MD.
https://web.archive.org/web/20051127213013/https://www.aip.org/history/newsletter/fall98/books98.htm 279. Dynamics of Theory Change in Chemistry: The
Benzene Problem 1865-1945. Studies
in History and Philosophy of Science,
30: 21-79 (1999) A
selective history of the benzene problem is presented, starting with August
Kekulé’s proposal of a hexagonal structure in 1865 and his hypothesis of 1872
that the C-C bonds oscillate between single and double. Special attention is
given to predictions, their empirical tests, and the effect of the outcomes of
those tests on the reception of the theories. By 1945, chemists generally
accepted the Valence Bond (resonance) theory proposed by Linus Pauling; some of
them considered this a more sophisticated version (and thus a vindication) of
Kekulé’s oscillation hypothesis. Dynamics of Theory Change in Chemistry: Benzene and
Molecular Orbitals, 1945-1980. Ibid.,
30: 263-302 (1999) The
alternative to VB, Robert Mulliken’s Molecular Orbital theory, was regarded as
quantitatively superior by many quantum chemists, though it was not as easy to
visualize and did not seem to harmonize as well with traditional chemical
concepts. During the 1950s and 1960s, thanks to Charles Coulson and others,
MO not only dominated theoretical discussions but also started to be accepted
by the chemical community as a whole and became the preferred description for
benzene. Possible reasons: its greater calculational convenience when applied
to large molecules; better expositions directed toward chemists; the
spectacular success of the Woodward-Hoffmann rules for pericyclic reactions and
Fukui’s frontier orbital theory; and the development of a general theory of
aromaticity, which predicted properties of similar molecules such as
cyclobutadiene. The relative importance of these reasons is explored through a
mail survey of chemists. 280. Why was Relativity
Accepted? Physics in Perspective, 1: 184-214 (1999). Historians
of science have published many studies of the reception of Einstein’s Special
and General Theories of Relativity (STR, GTR). Based on a review of these
studies, and my own research on the role of the light-bending prediction in the
reception of GTR, I discuss the role of 3 kinds of reasons for accepting R: (1)
empirical predictions and explanations; (2) social-psychological factors; (3)
aesthetic-mathematical factors. Acceptance was a 3-stage process: First, a few
leading scientists adopted STR for reason (3). Then, their advocacy persuaded
other scientists to work on the theory and apply it to problems currently of interest
in atomic physics, providing reason (1). STR was accepted by many German
physicists by 1910 and had begun to attract interest elsewhere. In the third
stage, the confirmation of the light-bending prediction attracted much public
attention and forced all physicists to take GTR seriously. Also, the
explanation of the advance of Mercury’s perihelion counted heavily. American astronomers who tests GTR became defenders of it. There is little evidence
that R was “socially constructed” but its initial acceptance was facilitated by
the prestige and resources of its advocates. 281. Review of Physicists in Conflict by
N. A. Porter. Physics
in Perspective, 1: 339-41 (1999). 282. Gadflies and Geniuses in the History of Gas
Theory. Synthese, 119: 11-43 (1999). Based on item #114. The
history of science has often been presented as a story of the achievements of geniuses.
I consider a different type of story, the history of the kinetic theory of
gases, which further research might reveal to be fairly common. Progress may
be stimulated by gadflies -- outspoken critics who challenge the ideas
of geniuses, forcing them to revise and improve those ideas, resulting in new
knowledge for which the genius (Robert Boyle, Rudolf Clausius, J. C. Maxwell,
Ludwig Boltzmann) gets the credit while the gadfly (Franciscus Linus, C. H. D.
Buys-Ballot, Francis Guthrie, Josef Loschmidt, E. P. Culverwell, S. H. Burbury,
Ernst Zermelo) is forgotten. For comparison, the positive contributions to
kinetic theory of Daniel Bernoulli (a genius without a gadfly) and John
Herapath (a gadfly without a genius) were not fully developed and had to be
rediscovered by others. 283. Postmodernism versus Science versus
Fundamentalism: An Essay Review. (of Science Wars, edited by A. Ross; The
Flight from Science and Reason, edited by P. R. Gross et al.; The
Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer,
edited by J. P. Moreland) Science
Education, 84: 114-22 (2000)
Wiley Online Library
(Sub)
Russian translation in Filosofski Alternativi (Philosophical
Alternatives), 9, no. 2 (2000): 14-23. Rather
than portraying the “Science Wars” as a battle between the political left
(postmodernists and social constructionists) and the political right
(scientists), it is more accurate to see science in the middle, being attacked
from the right (creationists) as well as the left. Sometimes the left, in the
name of cultural relativism, supports the right by urging the teaching of
creationism. 284. Thomas Kuhn as a Historian of Science. Science
& Education, 9: 39-58 (2000). Kuhn
(1922-1996) exerted a strong force on intellectual discourse in the last 3rd of
the 20th century, by the publication of a book only 200 pages long. Why did
Kuhn’s other publications in his own primary field, history of science, have so
little impact on that field? Was The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
so successful in accelerating the trend toward social history of science that
his own internalist work seemed outmoded? Kuhn wrote incisive articles on a
wide range of topics but they are rarely cited by historians of science. His
most important historical contribution in later years was in the history of
quantum theory; he led a project to collect and preserve source materials, and
published a monograph on the origin of the quantum hypothesis. Why does he
receive almost no recognition for his remarkable work on the history of quantum
physics? Does everyone still believe (in spite of Kuhn’s strong evidence to
the contrary) that Planck introduced a physical quantum discontinuity in 1900? 285. Creationism versus Physical Science.
American Physical Society News, 9, no. 10: 8
(Nov. 2000)
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200011/back-page.cfm
Creationists
want to banish the Big Bang from public schools, and they propose a deviant
version of Thermodynamics. The new “Intelligent Design” theory is a “soft”
Creationism -- it makes no testable statements, in contrast to Young Earth
Creationism which makes many testable statements, all of which have been tested
and refuted. Both versions, along with postmodern skepticism about the validity
of scientific knowledge, undermine public support for science. 286. Book Review: Ludwig Boltzmann: The Man
Who Trusted Atoms by C. Cercignani Journal
of Statistical Physics, 98: 1429-32
(2000) 287. Physics, The Human Adventure: From
Copernicus to Einstein and Beyond (by Gerald Holton & SGB). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2001. Xv + 582 pp. (3rd ed. of #89) See
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/Physics_The_Human_Adventure.html Includes
new sections on ancient theories of vision, conservation laws and symmetry, X
rays and the “Discovery of the Electron,” nuclear physics and the atomic bomb,
theories of the origin of the solar system, black holes, the expanding and
accelerating universe, formation of elements in stars, Big Bang vs. Steady
State, the Anthropic Principle, thematic elements and styles in science. Both
authors received the Hazen Education Prize of the History of Science Society,
in part for this book and its earlier editions. 288. Origin of the Solar System. In Encyclopedia
of Astronomy and Astrophysics, edited by Paul Murdin, vol. 4: 1955-59. Bristol & Philadelphia: Institute of Physics Publishing, 2001. http://eaa.crcpress.com/
(Sub) 289. Review of Quantum
Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century by H. Kragh.
American Journal of Physics, 69: 524-25 (2001) https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1351149
(Sub) 290. Art Mirrors Physics Mirrors Art (Review of Einstein,
Picasso by A. I. Miller). Physics
Today 54, no. 12: 49-50 (Dec. 2001): https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1445548
(Free) Einstein,
Picasso, and Cubism: “Seeing” the Fourth Dimension. Physics
Today 55, no. 5: 12 (May 2002).
[Reply to letters ] https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4796716
(Full letter available to view as part of preview) 291. Is the Earth too Old? The Impact of
Geochronology on Cosmology, 1929-1952. In The Age of the Earth: from 4004
BC to AD 2002, edited by C. L. E. Lewis and S. J. Knell, pp. 157-175. London: Geological Society, Special Publications, no. 190 (2001).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2001.190.01.12
(Sub) Estimates
of the Earth’s age have affected not only geology but also biology, astronomy
and biblical creationism. In the 1930s and 1940s, the age of the Universe as
estimated from the Expanding Universe Theory (EUT) was less than 2 billion
years, but the age of the Earth as estimated from radiometric dating was
perhaps as great as 3 billion years. Astronomers responded to this
contradiction in at least 3 different ways. (1) Some cosmologists favored
Lemaitre’s model, in which the universe remains about the same size for an
indefinite period of time before starting its present stage of expansion; this
was compatible with theories of the origin of the Solar System in the 1930s.
(2) E. P. Hubble, generally regarded as the founder of the EUT because of his
discovery of the redshift-distance law, doubted its validity and seemed to
prefer a non-expanding model, though he emphasized, up to the time of his death
in 1953, that the correct interpretation of the redshifts of distant galaxies
was still an open question. (3) Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi, and Thomas Gold
proposed a “steady state” cosmology: the Universe has always existed, so there
is no conflict between its (infinite) age and that of the Earth.. The
discrepancy was finally resolved in the 1950s when astronomers revised their
distance scale and boosted the age of the Universe to 10 billion years or
more--greater than the revised age of the Earth, now estimated by C. C.
Patterson and others as 4.5 billion years. The current agreement between
geologists and astronomers again leaves creationists with no scientific support
for their claim that both the Earth and the Universe were created only about
10,000 years ago. 292. Cautious
Revolutionaries: Maxwell, Planck, Hubble.
American Journal of Physics 70: 119-27 (2002) https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1427310
(Sub) Three
scientists exemplified the cautious behavior that we might like all scientists
to display: indeed, they were so critical of their own ideas that they risked
losing credit for them. Nevertheless, they finally earned at least as much
fame as they deserved, leaving historians to wonder about what they really
believed. Maxwell initially rejected the kinetic theory of gases because two
of its predictions disagreed with experiments; later he revived the theory,
showed that one of those experiments had been misinterpreted, and eventually
became known as one of the founders of the modern theory. Planck seems to have
intended his 1900 quantum hypothesis as a mathematical device, not a physical
discontinuity; later he limited it to the emission (not absorption) of
radiation, thereby discovering “zero-point energy.” Eventually he accepted the
physical quantum hypothesis and became known as its discoverer. Hubble (with
Humason) established the distance-velocity law, which others used as a basis
for the expanding universe theory; later he suggested that redshifts may not be
due to motion and appeared to lean toward a static model in place of the
expanding universe (of which he is still considered the discoverer). 293. Review of Histories
of the Electron, edited by J. Z. Buchwald & A. Warwick. Physics
in Perspective 4: 492-93 (2002) 294. Struggling for Existing: Essay Review of Science
Unfettered: A Philosophical Study in Sociohistorical Ontology by J. E.
McGuire & B. Tuchanska. (By Nikolina Sretenova & SGB) Metascience 11: 310-16 (2002) 295. A Wider Audience for History of Science
(response to award of the Hazen Education Prize by the History of Science
Society) History
Newsletter, Center for History of Physics 34, no. 1: 4 (Spring 2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20070606030756/https://aip.org/history/newsletter/spring2002/brush.htm
In
an age when education seems to be dominated by relentless specialization and
the testing of factual knowledge, many people are fascinated by the Big
Questions: What is the origin of the universe? Did humans evolve from simpler
organisms? Why did Europe come to dominate the world after the 15th
century? Do science and society influence each other? If historians of
science don’t answer these questions, others will. In fact, others have
already done so, but their answers are not reliable. Accurate history is often
more interesting than mythology but historians of science should make the
effort to write for students and the public, not just for each other. 296. Peer Review
Materials for Physical Review. History
of Physics Newsletter, 8, no. 5: 15
(Fall 2002)
https://www.aps.org/units/fhp/newsletters/upload/fall02.pdf (Free)
297. History of Science
Society Invitation. History
of Physics Newsletter, 8, no. 5: 16
(Fall 2002)
https://www.aps.org/units/fhp/newsletters/upload/fall02.pdf (Free)
298. How Theories Became
Knowledge: Morgan’s Chromosome Theory of Heredity in America and Britain. Journal
of the History of Biology, 35:
471-535 (2002) T.
H. Morgan, A. H. Sturtevant, H. L. Muller and C. B. Bridges published their
treatise The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity in 1915. By 1920 Morgan’s
“Chromosome Theory of Heredity” (CTH) was accepted by geneticists in the U.S., and by British geneticists by 1925. By 1930 it had been incorporated into most
general biology, botany, and zoology textbooks as established knowledge. Why
was it accepted? Confirmed novel predictions played a role, but were generally
less important than the CTH’s ability to explain Mendelian inheritance,
sex-linked inheritance, non-disjunction, and the connection between linkage
groups and the number of chromosome pairs; in other words, to establish a firm
connection between genetics and cytology. It is remarkable that geneticists
were willing to accept the CTH as applicable to all organisms at a time
when it had been confirmed only for Drosophila. Maps showing the
location on the chromosomes of genes for specific characters were especially
convincing for non-geneticists. 299. Why did (or didn’t)
it Happen? Historically
Speaking, 4, no. 5: 20-21 (June
2003).
https://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/june03.html#brush
(Free Excerpt)
Scientists
want to describe the natural world and also find out what causes things to
happen in that world; presumably historians want to uncover causes as well as
facts in the human world. To what extent is this presumption valid? Is history
a science? Attempts to answer this question have been confounded by misleading
ideas about “The Scientific Method” popularized by Karl Popper, whose
fallacious “falsifiability” criterion has even misled the U. S. Supreme Court.
To me the most important question in the history of science is “why did the
Scientific Revolution happen in Europe in the 17th century, not some other time
and place?” Political historians do try to answer such questions, for example
in connection with the English civil war, even though the answer requires
explaining why something didn’t happen; historians of science are
strangely reluctant to do that. This
publication was named an “article of note” in the announcement of the Historical
Society’s 2004 Prizewinners; see Historically Speaking, 5, no. 5: 38-39
(May/June 2004)
https://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/september03.html#letters
(Free)
Letter
to the Editor, Historically Speaking, 5, no. 1: 50 (September 2003) [Reply
to letter from Roger L. Williams on the cause of Scientific Revolution.] In
order to judge whether Williams’ explanation is valid, rather than one of the
other proposed explanations of the Scientific Revolution, we still need to look
at other possible sites such as China or Islam several centuries earlier, to
see which of his factors were present or absent there. 300. The Kinetic Theory of Gases: An Anthology
of Classic Papers with Historical Commentary. Edited
by Nancy S. Hall. London: Imperial College Press, 2003. ix + 647 pp See
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/The_Kinetic_Theory_of_Gases.html Includes
#28, 31, 58, 70, 116, 130, 282; bibliography of historical commentaries. 301. Review of The
Politics of Excellence: Behind the Nobel Prize in Science by R. M.
Friedman. Physics
in Perspective, 5: 235-238 (2003). The
book is based on detailed analysis of committee reports (written in Swedish) on
the prizes in Physics and Chemistry, proposed or awarded in the first half of
the 20th century. Friedman, an American who can read Swedish, has worked in
the Nobel Archives for two decades to produce this book. It will be
interesting to see whether the reputation of the Prize survives his critical
scrutiny. 302. La Teoria Cinetica dei Gas. In Storia
della Scienza, edited by S. Petruccioli, vol. 7, L’Ottocento,
chapter 44, pp. 482-496. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana (2003,
pub. 2004). (Full
text English translation available on this website) Survey
based on item 114. 303. Author’s Query: Why
Natural Selection? Reports
of the National Center for Science Education, 23, nos. 3-4: 14 (May-August 2003). 304. J. Willard Gibbs and his Legacy: A Double
Centennial. APS March Meeting, Austin, 3 March 2003. By SGB & Michael E.
Fisher. History
of Physics Newsletter, 9, no. 1: 6-7
(Fall 2003).
https://www.aps.org/units/fhp/newsletters/upload/fall03.pdf (Free)
His
Elementary Principles of Statistical Mechanics was published in 1902,
and he died in 1903. Gibbs symposia were also held at Yale and the University of Maryland. 305. Review of The Cambridge History of
Science, Volume 5, The Modern Physical and Mathematical Sciences,
edited by M. J. Nye. Isis, 94: 687-688 (2003, pub. 2004) The
book is strongly recommended to historians, scientists, and graduate students.
It exemplifies many of the strengths (and a couple of the weaknesses) of
current scholarship in the history of science. 306. Is Physics “Scientific”? Bulletin
of the American Physical Society, 48,
no. 3: 53 (2003) Abstract
of paper presented at APS meeting, 5 April 2003. See also History of
Physics Newsletter 9, no. 1, pp. 9-10 (Fall 2003)
https://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR03/APR03/baps/abs/S440001.html (Free)
What
does it mean to be “scientific”? A standard formula is: collect facts,
formulate a hypothesis, predict a novel (unknown) fact; reject or change the
hypothesis if the prediction is falsified; favor a hypothesis that makes more
successful novel predictions. Although individual scientists may follow this
formula in deciding whether to publish a new idea, it does not appear that the
physics community judges proposed theories primarily on the basis of their
success in making confirmed novel predictions. In view of the spectacular
success of physics in the past 2 centuries, we should not call physics
unscientific, rather we should question whether the standard formula describes
how physics works. Do we need a new definition of “scientific”? How would
this affect physics education? 307. The Shape of the Universe. Review of
“Dodecahedral Space Topology ...” by J.-P. Luminet et al. and “The Shape
of the Universe” by G. F. R. Ellis, in Nature (2003); D. Overbye,
“Cosmic Soccer Ball ...” New York Times (2003); Plato’s Cosmology
translated with commentary by F. M. Cornford (1937). Journal
of Scientific Exploration, 18, no. 1:
160-161 (2004).
https://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/volume-18-number-1-2004 (Entire issue can be downloaded free from link)
Luminet
and his colleagues argue, using results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe of the cosmic background radiation, that the universe must be finite, and
propose that the WMAP data are best represented by a Poincaré dodecahedral
space. The pentagonal sides of the dodecahedron are slightly curved, giving
the appearance of a soccer ball. Plato, in Timaeus, described the
universe in a remarkably similar way; Cornford and other commentators suggest
that he also had in mind the soccer ball analogy. Is this just a coincidence? 308. Comments on the Epistemological
Shoehorn Debate. Science
& Education, 13: 197-200 (2004). According
to Allchin (2003), Lawson (2002) tried to shoehorn the history of science into
a preconceived philosophical category, the hypothetico-deductive method (HD).
Lawson replied (2003) that discovery is based on HD because that’s the way the
brain works, and accused Allchin of shoehorning science into another method,
blind search and induction. In agreement with Allchin, who actually wrote that
HD is one of several methods used by scientists, I argue that HD by itself
cannot explain how new theories and discoveries are accepted in science.
Historical research has shown that other factors are involved. 309. The Morphology of
Steve (by Eugenie C. Scott and about 440 co-authors including SGB.) Annals
of Improbable Research (July-August
2004), 24-29.
https://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume10/v10i4/morph-steve-10-4.pdf (Free)
The
National Center for Science Education (NCSE)’s “Project Steve” originated as
a parody of the creationist practice of compiling lists of “scientists who
doubt Darwinism” - such lists being intended to cast doubt that evolution is
based on sound science. NCSE collected the signatures of 440 scientists, all of
them named “Steve” (or cognates Stephanie, etc.) who endorsed a statement about
the importance of evolution to science. The choice of name honored Stephen Jay
Gould. Because Steve and cognates comprise about 1% of American names, each
Steve would represent 100 scientists. All of the creationist lists put
together have only 9 Steves. NCSE
offered T-shirts to the participating Steves, and requested their shirt sizes
as well as their mailing addresses. The article is based on statistical
analysis of this data. It was found that residents of islands (Great Britain, Australia) tend to be smaller than residents of mainlands, in agreement with known
results from other large mammal species. Other expected correlations (sexual
dimorphism, Bergman’s rule [larger body size at higher latitudes]) were not
found. 310. Anachronism and the
History of Science: Copernicus as an Airplane Passenger. Scientia
Poetica, Jahrbuch für Geschichte der Literatur und der Wissenschaften, 8: 255-264 (2004) Some
scholars have recently debated whether it is legitimate “to describe past deeds
and past works in terms that were not available to the agents themselves” or to
“ascribe to past thinkers concepts they had no legitimate means to express”
(Jardine, Prudovsky). Many modern historians of science, attempting to replace
present-minded “whiggism” by “contextualism,” have rejected such anachronisms.
A few philosophers of science have used them under the name “causal theory of
reference” as part of a strategy to defend realism. While there seems to be
little justification for using anachronisms in professional discourse about the
history if science, they may be appropriate in pre-college science education.
For example, in explaining why astronomers accepted the heliocentric system,
despite the difficulty of understanding how the Earth could be moving without
our noticing it, one could appeal to a common experience of travelers, as
Copernicus did himself. “When a ship is floating calmly along,” those on the
ship “suppose that they are stationary” while their surroundings are moving.
Since children nowadays are more likely to travel in an airplane than a ship,
why not use that example to suggest why Copernicus believed that the Earth
could be moving relative to a stationary universe of Sun and stars? 311. How Theories Became
Knowledge: Why Science Textbooks Should be Saved. In Who
Wants Yesterday’s Papers? Essays on the Research Value of Printed Materials in
the Digital Age (Proceedings from a Symposium at the University of
Maryland) edited by Yvonne Carignan et al. Pp. 45-57. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2005. To order new through Rowman and Littlefield, go to
Rowman Page To order used through Amazon.com, go to
Amazon Page To see more ordering options, go to
Google Books
In
my research, using textbooks along with journal articles, monographs, and other
sources, I study the process by which theories become part of the established
core of knowledge of a scientific field. The evaluation process usually begins
when a paper is submitted for publication in a journal, and the editor asks two
or three scientists whether it should be published. The reports generated by
this “peer review” process can be of great value as evidence for the criteria
used by scientists in judging new ideas, but often are not saved or easily
available (cf. Item 296). After publication, the paper may be mentioned by
other scientists in their own papers. The Science Citation Index is
useful for papers published since the mid-20th century, although the number of
citations cannot be regarded as a measure of acceptance or importance (cf. Item
232). For papers published earlier the most efficient approach is to scan all
the volumes of the major journals in a field for a period 10 to 20 years after
publication of the theory. Here is where library policies affect the work of
the historian. Given limited space, decisions about which volumes to put into
storage are crucial; long runs of old scientific journals are often relegated
to an off-campus building where they are not easily accessible unless one
already has a precise citation. In the future this problem may be solved for
major journals by electronic databases like JSTOR. But these probably will not
include textbooks, which I found to be one of the best sources of evidence
about theory-acceptance, since their authors are more likely than authors of
journal articles to explain why they include a new theory. Consecutive
editions of a widely-used book are especially useful in pinpointing when
the author decided the theory was well-enough established to be included. Yet
libraries generally do not systematically buy textbooks, and often discard an
old one if it is replaced by a new edition. This is illustrated by the case of
Mendeleev’s periodic law, which was initially introduced as a teaching aid and
was not widely discussed in the research literature, so textbooks are the best
source of evidence for its acceptance (item 270). But many chemistry textbooks
that were used in American colleges before 1890 no longer exist in any American library. Moreover, not enough series of consecutive editions have
survived to allow the historian to determine whether the acceptance of the law
was due primarily to the conversion of individual authors or to the replacement
of those authors by younger authors who had already accepted the system. (This
is relevant to “Planck’s Principle.”) A few research libraries should start
now to collect and preserve the textbooks that survive, following the example
of the Niels Bohr Library (American Institute of Physics). 312. Accommodation or
Prediction? Science 308: 1410 (2005).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.308.5727.1409c (Sub) Also
JSTOR Letter
to Editor on Peter Lipton’s article “Testing Hypotheses: Prediction and
Prejudice” (ibid. 219-221). He “gives no evidence that
scientists, past or present, actually accept” his thesis that prediction is
better than accommodation. In his reply Lipton admits that he “focused on the
normative question” not on the actual behavior of scientists. 313. Review of Chemical Structure, Spatial
Arrangement: The Early History of Stereochemistry, 1874-1914, by Peter J.
Ramberg. Centaurus 47: 79-81 (2005). 314. Laying down the
laws. Review of When Physics Became King by I. R. Morus. Nature, 436: 463 (2005).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/436463a(Sub) 315. Review of The Tests of Time: Readings in
the Development of Physical Theory, edited by L. M. Dolling, A. F. Gianelli
and G. N. Statile (2003). The
British Journal for the History of Science 39: 125-126 (2006), https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007087406237890
(Sub) 316. Meteorites and the
Origin of the Solar System In The
History of Meteorites and Key Meteorite Collections: Fireballs, Falls and Finds,
edited by G. J. H. McCall, A. J. Bowden & R. J. Howarth, pp. 417-441. London: Geological Society, Special Publications, no. 256
(2006). Based in part on item 265
https://dx.doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2006.256.01.21
(Sub) During
the past two centuries, theories of the origin of the Solar System have been
strongly influenced by observations and theories about meteorites. I review
this history up to about 1985. In
the 19th century the hypothesis that planets formed by accretion of small solid
particles (“the meteoritic hypothesis”) competed with the alternative “nebular
hypothesis” of Laplace, based on condensation from a hot gas. At the beginning
of the 20th century Chamberlin and Moulton revived the meteoritic hypothesis as
the “planetesimal hypothesis” and joined it to the assumption that the Solar
System evolved from the encounter of the Sun with a passing star. Later, the
encounter hypothesis was rejected and the planetesimal hypothesis was incorporated
into new versions of the nebular hypothesis. In the 1950s, meteorites provided
essential data for the establishment by Patterson and others of the
presently-accepted 4½ billion year age of the Earth and the Solar System.
Analysis of the Allende meteorite, which fell in 1969, inspired the “supernova
trigger” theory of the origin of the solar system, and provided useful
constraint on theories of planetary formation developed by Urey, Ringwood,
Anders and others. Many of these theories assumed condensation from a
homogeneous hot gas, an assumption that was challenged by astrophysical
calculations. The meteoritic-planetesimal theory of planet formation was
developed in Russia by Schmidt and later by Safronov and his colleagues.
Wetherill, in the U. S., established it as the preferred theory for formation
of terrestrial planets. 317. Review of Nobel Laureates and
Twentieth-Century Physics by M. Dordo. Physics
in Perspective, 8: 105-106 (2006) 318. Predictivism and the Periodic Table. Studies
in History and Philosophy of Science,
38: 256-259 (2007) Comment
on a paper by Barnes (2005) and response to it by Scerri (2005) and Worrall
(2005), debating the thesis (“predictivism”) that a fact successfully predicted
in advance by a theory is stronger evidence than a similar fact known before
the prediction was made. Barnes and Scerri both use evidence presented in my
paper on Mendeleev’s periodic law (item 270) to support their views. I do not
argue for or against predictivism in the normative sense that philosophers of
science employ, rather I describe how scientists themselves use facts and
confirmed predictions to support their theories. I find wide variations, and
no support for the assumption that scientists use a single “Scientific Method”
in deciding whether to accept a proposed new theory. 319. How Ideas Became
Knowledge: The Light-Quantum Hypothesis 1905-1935 Historical
Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 37: 205-246 (2007) (Contribution
to an issue honoring Russell McCormmach, founding editor of Studies) In
1905, Albert Einstein proposed as a “heuristic viewpoint” that light and other
forms of electromagnetic radiation behave in some respects like streams of
particles, each carrying energy h (h = Planck’s constant, L =
frequency), even though they also behave like waves. This became known as the
Light Quantum Hypothesis. J. J. Thomson and other physicists proposed similar
but less quantitative ideas. When
and why did physicists accept the LQH? It is shown that a significant number
of physicists already accepted particulate aspects of radiation before the
discovery of the Compton effect in 1923, and that research on the photoelectric
effect played an important role in this acceptance. Compton argued that his
research was stronger evidence for the LQH because it yielded a prediction
about a previously unknown phenomenon, the recoil electron. But there is little
evidence that other scientists gave extra credit for predicting a result before
rather than after it was known. Probably the combination of both effects (and
other evidence) was needed to persuade skeptics. 320. Remembering Rabi: A
challenge and a ghost story. (XT) Physics
Today 60, no. 6: 10 (June 2007)
https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2754581 (Free) Letter
to the editor about a lecture by Rabi, published posthumously in the August
2006 issue. Rabi stated that “During the first period of its existence,
quantum mechanics didn’t predict anything that wasn’t already predicted [i.e.
known] before.” Is this true? Readers are challenged to find any “prediction
in advance” (other than electron diffraction, a dubious example) whose
confirmation had any role in persuading physicists to accept the theory (which
was established by 1928). (“Ghost
story” in the title refers to another letter about Rabi.) 321. Suggestions for the
Study of Science. In Positioning
the History of Science [essays in honor of S. S. Schweber], edited by
Kostas Gavroglu & Jürgen Renn, 13-25. Boston Studies in the
Philosophy of Science, 248 (2007). For purchase of ebook, paper book, and individual chapters, see
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5420-3 Historians
of science should be willing to discuss, intelligibly, the “Big Questions” that
interest students, teachers, and the public. Attention to those questions
would also be beneficial to our own research. For example: “why did the
Scientific Revolution happen in Europe in the 17th century?” You can’t give a
plausible answer unless you try to explain why it didn’t happen in other
places where a very high level of science (and technology) has been reached
earlier, e.g. Islam and China. Many historians of science have refused to
consider this approach, even though other historians have used it to explain
similar events such as the English Revolution/Civil War of the 17th century.
Historians of science have also declined to discuss questions about the “nature
of science” leaving such questions to philosophers and science educators. More
generally I suggest that historians of science should be willing to go beyond
mere description of what happened to try to analyze why it
happened. One reason, which has been mentioned but not taken seriously, is
that new ideas are first introduced as mathematical hypotheses (not claimed to
represent reality) but when successful in describing observations they force
scientists to accept new versions of reality. 322. Determining the Age of the Earth (XT). Review
of A Natural History of Time by Pascual Richet. Journal
for the History of Astronomy, 40:
360-361 (2009). Available free through SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2009JHA....40..360B/abstract
323. Choosing Selection: The Revival of
Natural Selection in Anglo-American Evolutionary Biology, 1930-1970. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 2009. (Transactions,vol. 99, Part 3)
vii + 183 pp. For electronic version, see
JSTOR For more information and paper version ordering links, see
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/Choosing_Selection.html This
book describes the establishment of the hypothesis that Charles Darwin’s
“natural selection,” reformulated by R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and S.
Wright in the light of Mendelian genetics, is the primary or exclusive
mechanism for biological evolution. During the 1930s, alternatives such as
Lamarckism, macromutations, and orthogenesis were rejected in favor of natural
selection acting on small mutations, but there were disagreements about the
role of random genetic drift in evolution. The hypothesis in its modern form
became the theoretical core of the Evolutionary Synthesis. By the 1950s,
research by T. Dobzhansky, E. B. Ford and others persuaded leading
evolutionists that natural selection was so powerful that drift was generally
unimportant. This conclusion, the “Natural Selection Hypothesis” (NSH) was
accepted by most authors of monographs on evolution, biology textbooks and
popular articles, but a significant minority also mentioned drift in the late
1960s. The
controversy about whether evolutionary theory makes testable predictions is
examined. It appears that the philosophers who started this controversy were
unaware of the predictions that had actually been made and tested. The
biologists who responded chose to ignore those predictions even though they
knew about them, perhaps because they resisted on principle any requirement
that biology must make testable predictions in order to be scientific. While
the confirmation of predictions did give some rhetorical ammunition to those
who had already accepted the NSH, tests of predictions did not play a major
role in the decision to accept it, except in the case of Dobzhansky and those
who understood the significance of his research on chromosome inversions in
Drosophila. In this respect, at least, evolutionary biology is not much
different from the physical sciences. Some
of the best-known evidence for natural selection, such as Kettlewell's
experiments on the Peppered Moth, did not appear in most textbooks until the
1960s, and thus did not substantially aid the establishment of the NSH until
just before it was challenged by new “neutral” or “nonDarwinian” theories of
evolution. Winner
of the 2009 John Frederick Lewis Award (American Philosophical Society) 324. Review of Einstein’s Generation: The
Origins of the Relativity Revolution, by Richard Staley. American Journal of Physics, 77: 1086-1087 (2009). https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.3191687
(Sub) 325. Theory and Experiment in the
Quantum-Relativity Revolution. Presented at American Physical Society “April”
Meeting, Washington, DC, 14 February 2010. Abstract published in Program, page
125. (Full
text available on this website) Does
new scientific knowledge come from theory (whose predictions are confirmed by
experiment) or from experiment (whose results are explained by theory)? Either
can happen, depending on whether theory is ahead of experiment or experiment is
ahead of theory at a particular time. In the first case, new theoretical
hypotheses are made and their predictions are tested by experiments. But even
when predictions are successful, we can’t be sure that some other hypothesis
might not have produced the same prediction. In the second case, as in a
detective story, there are already enough facts, but several theories have
failed to explain them. When a new hypothesis plausibly explains all of the
facts, it may be quickly accepted before any further experiments are done. In
the quantum-relativity revolution there are examples of both situations.
Because of the two-stage development of both relativity (“special,” then
“general”) and quantum theory (“old,” then “quantum mechanics”) in the period
1905-1930, we can make a double comparison of acceptance by prediction and by
explanation. A curious anti-symmetry is revealed and discussed. 326. Making 20th Century Science: How Theories Became Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. xvii + 531 pp. Written with the assistance of Ariel Segal For more information, See https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~brush/books/Making_20th_Century_Science.html Historically, the scientific method has been said to require proposing a theory, making a prediction of something not already known, testing the prediction, and giving up the theory (or substantially changing it) if it fails the test. A theory that leads to several successful predictions is more likely to be accepted than one that only explains what is already known but not understood. This process is widely treated as the conventional method of achieving scientific progress, and was used throughout the twentieth century as the standard route to discovery and experimentation. But does science really work this way? In Making 20th Century Science, Stephen G. Brush discusses this question, as it relates to the development of science throughout the last century. Answering this question requires both a philosophically and historically scientific approach, and Brush blends the two in order to take a close look at how scientific methodology has developed. Several cases from the history of modern physical and biological science are examined, including Mendeleev's Periodic Law, Kekule's structure for benzene, the light-quantum hypothesis, quantum mechanics, chromosome theory, and natural selection. In general it is found that theories are accepted for a combination of successful predictions and better explanations of old facts. Making 20th Century Science is a large-scale historical look at the implementation of the scientific method, and how scientific theories come to be accepted. 327. Mathematics as an Instigator of Scientific Revolutions (XT). Science & Education, 24: 495–513 (2015). https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9762-x
(Sub) |